Tyranny of the Majority, Two
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <5/15>

      It has become a principle of American law that 51% can pass any law, enforce it, and call the 49% who disagree at the minimum criminals and these days, disloyal. There are few laws that are that extreme, the 1993 tax increase being the most recent example. But there are even worse examples although not that extreme.
      Even the mainstream environmentalists, not just the wild eyed, tree spiking terrorist types have been indulging it for years. Environmental preservation, species preservation is a sacred grail to the city folks who do not have to live with the consequences. For example the government imposes wolves upon the ranchers around Yellowstone but would not think of reintroducing them to their natural habitat in Washington DC.
      The argument for Yellowstone is that that was once the natural habitat of wolves. The argument that ranches are not there falls on deaf ears. The argument that DC was the natural habitat of wolves as recently as 1910 does not merit consideration. After all it is now a large city and city people should not have to deal with wolves.
      The issue of the wolf is not its natural habitat. It is people in cities insisting someone else bear the cost of environmental idealism. And of course, it is a law, it must be obeyed, despite the "let them eat cake" (let them be eaten?) attitude. Now before anyone wants to lecture me on the eating habits of wolves, if they do not attack people then the people of Washington DC are equally safe.
      You killed an endangered rat, go to jail.
      Your land is wet, touch it and go to jail.
      Where is the moral force in this position? As King George might have said, "You are only colonists. Go to hell." And as the tories argued for obedience to the Crown because it was the Crown today we have people arguing law must be obeyed because it is the law.
      They neglect human nature. People do not feel bound by any allegiance that does not address their problems and needs. People are outraged when their government harms them to the benefit of other people much less to the benefit of animals. A government that does not respond loses its ability to govern.
      There is no lecture, no appeal to reason, nothing that will substitute for equity. More and more people are dealing with such actions for what they are, "we won, you lost, shut up and obey." That is the attitude on the part of the government that leads to rebellion.
      The heart of the problem is that law must have moral force to be obeyed. Obeying laws must be voluntary by the vast majority else the government can exist as a tyranny. And for voluntary obedience a law must provide guidance to proper conduct. It can not simply be the law.
      The obvious example is the income tax. Engraved in stone over the entrance to the IRS headquarters in DC is that it depends upon voluntary compliance. If even a large fraction of the people were to cease voluntary compliance the system would collapse. There is no way to hire enough people to enforce the tax code without voluntary compliance.
      The rational student of government would hold there is either voluntary compliance or there is forced compliance. At some point when enough fail to comply voluntarily the amount of force required makes the government a tyranny. The reason is limited man power and a shortage of needed manpower means more rights must be violated must be used to obtain compliance.
      This is most clear in the civil forfeiture laws regarding drugs. At the moment the drug laws have overwhelmed the legal system. As such there are not enough people to arrest and prosecute every case. As such we have laws where a simple and cheap civil forfeiture of money and property is used instead of the expense of a fair trial.
      In response to the lack of manpower and money, drugs are being dealt with by clever deprivation of civil rights. Now drugs may be the worst thing since Madonna and lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it. But the fact is that there is not enough voluntary compliance with the drug laws to permit their enforcement and human rights to exist side by side.
      That is a tyranny. The very idea that laws can be passed that can not result in voluntary compliance is tyranny. They are laws that demand obedience to the ideas of some rather than providing guidance for all.
      Regarding guns, new technology does come along and certainly it was not anticipated by the founders. Certainly this creates problems that need be addressed. And in addressing them the laws need provide new and mutually agreed guidance as to how to deal with this new technology. Without that mutually agreement the laws are tyrannical.
      In dealing with illegal search, it is not mutually agreed we are subject to overhead search from aircraft or by infrared simply because they are new while we have always been immune from the police using a ladder to look over our fence.
      This tyranny of the majority is not being tolerated. That is clear. And when the government has laws that do not result in voluntary compliance, they may be the best laws for society, but without voluntary compliance by the vast majority we have a worse situation, a tyrannical government.
      And in such a situation it is the government that must change. The government exists only by the consent of the governed. No matter how "bad" or "evil" an activity is, if the majority do not voluntary comply with ceasing it then it is the government that must change.
      To hold otherwise is to hold that the government knows better than the people and to deny that the government is the people. When that is denied the government no longer has any right to exist.