Blog: Chapter 4, part 3
In further attempts to destroy resistance and prevent the "overthrow of government," the county/city contingent threatened to cut the strikers off from government services. Fred Sargent, chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditures, proposed strategic elimination of water, police protection (how that would be accomplished I don't know), and even legal standing in court. Sargent insisted the strikers should pay their taxes "if they are to claim the rights of American citizenship," which is an interesting concept, but one that doesn't have much backing. A quick perusal of the Declaration of Independence reveals that all men are created equal (which is a self-evident truth), and are endowed by their creator with certain* unalienable rights. So was Fred Sargent claiming the government of the city of Chicago to be the creator of the people who lived there? Or was he claiming that paying taxes gave these people life? Maybe he was stating his belief that the ambiguous and officious entity of bureaucratic government in general provided the validation people needed for existing. I can't say for sure what he was thinking (if he was at all, but I think he and his ilk were just getting desperate), but I do know that any one or any thing that claims to be the source of freedom has appointed themselves in the place of God. A government that claims to provide people with rights that come from God is committing blasphemy.
So after a few measly and cowardly attempts at making an example of high profile ARET members by revoking their government-provided privileges, the executive arm of government turned to the judicial arm for support. Judge Edmund Jarecki dismissed ARET's objections and entered a judgment for the sale of the tax strikers' properties. In a moment of graciousness and charity, he "announced a tempting 50 percent reduction in accumulated penalties for all taxpayers who came into court (bowed before the throne), received judgment (threw themselves at the mercy of the agent of the omnipotent state), and made partial payments (repented of their grievous sins)." I added the parenthetical statements, but is it really that much of a stretch? Is it really so ridiculous to say that government has appropriated God's right to bestow and revoke liberty? Government also attempts to make itself the granter of life, allowing and disallowing as it's mediums see fit, so how far does it have to go before we recognize it as blasphemy?
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil."
*in this context, does the word "certain" mean a few specific rights, or does it mean rights that are certain, as in secured and unassailable?
No comments:
Post a Comment