“Obeying The Law Is For Suckers”

So says Derek Hunter, who makes several almost unanswerable points.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

If you watch the news, national or local, there is a disturbing percentage of our fellow Americans doing whatever the hell they want to do with little or no concern for the law. And the law has little or no concern for itself, at least when it comes to those charged with enforcing it.

Across the country, charges are being dropped against rioters and looters. Why? Many of those people in position to prosecute the guilty have no interest in doing so. Hell, many of them ran on the idea of not prosecuting people. What kind of idiot would vote for a district attorney who promised to let people get away with more? Well, from San Francisco to St. Louis, they did just that.

I wouldn’t mind it so much if the piles of human garbage being given a pass stayed within the boundaries of the jurisdictions electing these morons to not enforce the law, but the idiots who do cast those ballots inevitably flee to sane areas, those not overrun by mutants like them, because who wants to live in a place where stealing anything valued at less than $1000 is no big deal?

. . .

It’s so out of control that at this point you’d almost have to be an idiot to follow the law. Like the movie I mentioned, there are no consequences to disobeying the law … With police ordered to stand down, or pulling back on their own, the mob has gone off the rails. Why shouldn’t you? If your store is raided, hope you have good insurance. If you’re randomly attacked, hope you fall safely.

What are we paying taxes for? Democrats in these mob run areas are not only turning a blind eye to lawlessness, they’re cheering it along. But I bet they’d bring down every bit of the law on us if we didn’t pay property or income taxes. A tax protest would be beyond the pale, but break into a store, steal a TV bigger than your car, or pummel someone for not appreciating it with a brick and you’re a hero exercising your First Amendment rights. Don’t cut a check to Big Brother and you’ll find out just how tolerant the left is, even if you say you’re doing it in the name of “social justice.”

All this might not be a sign of “the end of the world,” but it’s the end of something. The people who produce are paying, the people who don’t are benefiting. The people paying the bills are trampled while the mob is cheered and protected. Democrats cheer, Republicans are either mumbling or silent. No country can survive long with circumstances like that. And no government – local, state, or federal – that allows it to continue deserves to.

There’s more at the link.

The only drawback to following Mr. Hunter’s suggestion is that, if we abandon the rule of law because others are doing so, we make ourselves subject to the same penalties and consequences as they do.  If we – and they – no longer have the protection that the law offers to the law-abiding, we – like them – have to suffer the consequences.  That’s worth thinking about, because those consequences can impair us for the rest of our lives;  and the rest of our lives might not last long.

The law was intended to be a structure within which almost everybody could function, provided they followed its precepts.  When that structure breaks down, anarchy results.  In anarchy, the strongest come out on top, and there’s no guarantee we’ll be among them.

The fact that others appear to have abandoned the rule of law doesn’t mean we should let them get away with it.  There’s no moral or ethical reason not to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property if necessary.  Sadly, though, in many jurisdictions that have twisted the law to suit their own ends, we may be prosecuted for doing so.  That being the case, there appear to be only three possible courses of action from a law-abiding perspective.

  1. Force the authorities to do their job and uphold the rule of law.
  2. Replace the authorities with others who will uphold the rule of law.
  3. Leave where you are, and move to an area where the authorities still uphold the rule of law.

Sadly, all of those steps carry costs, sometimes severe, and are probably not viable for many of us.

Therefore, in the absence of any practical, viable alternative, Mr. Hunter’s prescription becomes more and more attractive.  When the law won’t protect people, why should they be bound by it?  That certainly opens new possibilities for potential responses to the lawless;  a good deal more practical, and much less restricted, particularly if those employing them can remain unidentified while doing so.

I suspect the law-abandoning authorities haven’t thought that through yet.  They should.

Peter

From this SOURCE