Civil law

Have we forgotten who we are? We stand here, comfortable in our majority, believing and thinking in our rights that they may be removed, and that we may vote for their removal. But yet, logic and reason itself speaks to us from the darkness, begging us to reconsider before the last brick is placed in our sepulcher.

But have we become monsters, to seal away that which is so vital to our cause, the cause of reason, of growth, of logic and humanity? Have we forgotten the greatest lesson of all, that which we make insecure for others, is insecure for ourselves?

People that have transgressed against each other deserve, and require punishment. Punishment, however, to be just must be finite, of clear terms and duration, and without arbitrary or vague action. The nature of punishment is that, to be just, it also must offer mercy, even within the mercy of a swift, painless death for those who have stolen the lives of others.

Punishment may be financial, or it may incarcerate, it may restrict, or restrain. But how often do we convince our politicians to snicker behind their hands, claiming a lack of punishment, when the restrictions go out?

The Rule of Law is simple: That which is legal for one is legal for all. That which is unlawful for one, is unlawful for all. Nothing further needs expounded on this principle.

Licensing anything is saying that, without that license, the actions taken would be unlawful. License derives from the idea that the law applies to some differently than others. So long as the Rule of Law applies, however, one cannot license that which is a right.

So what have we done? We have created registration, not for objects or things that we wish to maintain ownership over, but for human beings. Felon registries, sex offender registries, and denied them a license... for something that is their right. The right to live free, and the right to be left alone are foundational in our nation.

Are we saying that without registration, we would be unlawful to live? Can we make it unlawful for a person to exercise that simple right to be... left alone?

And if so, what does it say about the rights we retain? Should they change that licensing requirement to be general, as the Rule of Law itself requires, what would be your answer to this?

I am, as recognized by both detractors and myself, a total idiot. However, if one looks at this situation, with even a shred of rational thought, one must realize that we as a nation are moving back to a system we thought slain years ago.

Slavery. The slaves license to live was the master's will. The master had arbitrary control over the slave's life, and could execute them if they wished. They could sever families, sever limbs, without fear of punishment or retribution. They often maintained them helpless, took from them the increase of their labor, and ground them, body and soul, into the fields and mines.

Is our system of civil law so much different today? Licensing and modifying the law so some may exercise the rights, but others may not? This creates arbitrary classes which may be redefined at any point, by fear or malice.

I may be a total idiot.. but is this really where we want to go in this country?