Where Is The State?

     The operational definition of a state is an entity which is conceded the privilege of using coercive force by the residents of some region. The residents of the region concede the state that privilege because they also concede it to have jurisdiction (remember that word) over events in that region. Thus, there exists an implicit bargain between the state and its residents: “You,” the residents say, “may wield coercive force, but in return we expect that you will enforce the laws you have dictated.”

     Jurisdiction, etymologically, means “the pronouncement of laws.” In a land that upholds individual rights as a fundamental concept, for the state’s jurisdiction to be other than a tyranny, it must pronounce and enforce laws that protect and defend those rights. Should the state default on that obligation, it will forfeit its claim to jurisdiction – and therefore to its monopoly over the use of coercive force.

     Which brings us to this atrocity:

     The two teen girls accused of killing an Uber driver in a botched carjacking in Washington, DC, in March are expected to reach a plea deal with prosecutors in the case.

     The bargain should be reached in the coming days, but it’s unclear if it will fully resolve the case, according to the Washington Post.

     The girls are due back in court on April 20 to discuss the status of the case, the outlet said.

     The pair, ages 13 and 15, have been charged with felony murder, carjacking and armed robbery in the deadly incident, which they allegedly carried out near Nationals Park in the Southeast section of the nation’s capital.

     Under DC law, the 13-year-old can’t be charged as an adult — even in a murder case, according to the Post. The 15-year-old suspect could be charged as an adult, but that would increase the burden of proof on prosecutors, the report said.

     Other sources suggest that the deal mentioned above has already been concluded, and that it guarantees no prison time to either of the young murderers. Some might find this tolerable…possibly even praiseworthy. “They’re just kids,” the chant will run. “You can’t treat them as if they were fully responsible adults!” If the deal proves real, would you say that the state has enforced the law against felony murder?

     There are also laws in all fifty states against rioting, arson, and vandalism. Those laws have gone conspicuously unenforced in a slew of American cities this past year. Moreover, those who have engineered and encouraged those riots are pleased with the results. Why else would they “predict” even more of them?

     MODEL and Black Lives Matter activist Maya Echols has warned “all hell is gonna break loose” if Derek Chauvin isn’t convicted for the death of George Floyd.

     In a video published on TikTok, Echols cautioned that Minneapolis would suffer more riots and vandalism, similar to the chaos that unfolded in the city last May in response to Floyd’s fatal Memorial Day arrest.

     “If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced, just know that all hell is gonna break loose,” the activist is heard saying in the since-deleted clip.

     “Don’t be surprised when building are on fire. Just sayin’,” she added.

     Let’s imagine Miss Echols’s prediction to be accurate. Should that prove true, would you say the afflicted states have enforced the laws against rioting, arson, and vandalism?

     No, I wouldn’t either.

     The complete failure of the states to enforce the most fundamental of their laws – the ones that purport to defend the rights to life, liberty, and property – must be counterpoised to those states’ ever more relentless enforcement of laws that have no such import:

  • Laws that drain us through rising taxation;
  • Laws that infringe upon our right to work and earn;
  • Laws that minutely license and regulate our use of our property.

     Such laws have nothing to do with the protection of individuals’ rights. Indeed, they invade, abridge, and infringe upon those rights. Nevertheless, they’re enforced with a humorless ferocity. Some of the recent ukases from the governors of “blue states” even threaten our right to move about freely (cf. “vaccination passports”).

     Can you say anarcho-tyranny?

     It cannot be put better than that. They who wield coercive force without penalty have a fair claim to being agents of the state, if not the whole of it. In such a situation, civil war is not only inevitable but desirable:

     War is not coming. It is here. If you need any more proof than the shortage of available firearms and ammunition, look to the censorship of the news from the front. War may not be at your doorstep today, but any sapient individual understands that time is of the essence.

     And for its sins the state, whatever its elevation or claimed locale, will be responsible for everything that follows.


Skip to comment form

    • robert william orians on April 7, 2021 at 7:18 AM

    Our courts oppose the righteous,and justice is nowhere to be found.Truth stumbles in the streets,and honesty has been outlawed.
    Isaiah 59:14   
    Kyle Rittenhouse is being prosecuted to the full extent . Meanwhile Joes crackhead son is making millions from the Chinese and Ukranians . The unborn have been cast into the trash after selling the best parts for research . Chauvin will be sent to prison or the big cities will burn . Saint Floyd will be up for a federal  holiday . We are living out Isaiah 59 . Read it all to see Americas future . 

    • enn ess on April 7, 2021 at 12:50 PM

    All things considered, where God given rights are concerned, all govt’s throughout history, since the beginning, have been criminal in their interactions with a free people. It is the very nature of govt.
     As in our Republic, govt is instituted among men to protect those rights. NOT to control those rights…. Thus human nature being what it is, and the flawed individuals the Creator made in His image, require a certain amount of accountability. But I would submit, were we accountable to each other and not to a govt, we would be much better off.

    • Tim Turner on April 7, 2021 at 3:47 PM

    I thought Kashiwagi’s thread was so wel-written and pertinent that I copy and pasted it all (except fot the Gofundme info at the end.)  I paste it here, but it may appear screwy since it’s just a .txt file.
    The monopoly on violence must be understood not just as a prescriptive matter (“only the state has moral authority to use violence”) but also a descriptive one (“all violence within the state flows from the state”). Crime, riot, and general anarchy are the state’s responsibility.
    A state is responsible for the crimes of its citizens much as a man is responsible for the acts of his children, or his dog. He may not be guilty of biting, but he is guilty of omission. A state by definition can control its citizens; it is guilty when it omits to do so.
    People like to discuss whether the death penalty should exist. They ignore that, objectively, it always does. Whether the state chooses to carry out executions or not, every murder it fails to prevent is a death penalty. Every assault a corporal punishment. Every theft a taking.
    Thus when we consider whether executions, canings, mass incarceration and so on are “uncivilized”, the appropriate comparison is not an /alternative/ form of punishment, but that alternative /plus/ whatever brutality the absence of the original, harsher punishment implies.
    Canings may be less civilized than no canings. Are canings less civilized than the stochastic crime that an absence of swift and painful punishment enables? Is Singapore less civilized than the United States? Does it look less civilized by any metric?
    This formulation still leaves room for the concept of “cruelty.” Cruelty is simply force beyond what is necessary to curb the problem. It has nothing to do with romanticism about the dignity of man. Man’s dignity is also offended when he is the victim of random street violence.
    Because the state’s enforcers cannot be everywhere at once, the state may choose to let citizens defend themselves. When the state neither enforces the law nor allows private citizens to defend themselves, that is anarcho-tyranny. The monopoly on violence belongs to the criminal.
    In such a system, we must conclude that it is the criminals themselves who enforce the will of the state. If the monopoly on violence belongs to the criminal, the criminal is the state.
    Crime is not a difficult problem. It is one of the first problems any state solves by definition, and one which pre-modern societies managed more effectively than we do now. The problem is a state which refuses to take accountability for its own power.

    1. Thank you, Tim. I was a wee bit too lazy to do that myself.

Comments have been disabled.