People v. State

fairly undermining public confidence in the administration of justice


I graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1999. A student law review article I authored while there got me started on a crusade immediately following graduation premised on the cause of action set forth in the article. The article had gotten quite a bit of attention, and was in fact distributed to every member of congress by a congressman/M.D. along with a letter urging them to read it. My plan was to remedy a gross and pervasive injustice and hopefully make millions in the process, kind of like the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the litigation against Big Tobacco (which was small potatoes compared to what I had in mind). Instead, the injustice remains unremedied and unchecked, and I wound up broke and deeply disillusioned with the following branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive.

Despite becoming broke as a result of this debacle, I still “owed” in taxes more than a third of my income to the very government which was perpetuating and perpetrating the very injustice upon which I had crashed and burned. The disillusionment deepened, and has made me what I am today: Enlightened, relative to my former illusionment.

It’s a good thing to be disabused of our illusions and superstitions. More of us should try it. Enlightenment is the bright flip-side of disillusionment. After many centuries, more and more people began to question the authority of the official Church over their consciences. It’s time for these same kinds of questions and doubts to be aimed at the pretensions of the State.

There’s little doubt that in general “our” government is not quite as bad as the government in, say, China. That doesn’t make our government good, however, or worthy of our gratitude for not being quite as bad as China.

One thing that is admirable in our constitutional scheme, though, is the First Amendment. I like to think that what made it the First was the idea that, no matter how oppressive the State might get, so long as people remain free to speak their minds things can still change for the better. (Note which Amendment comes Second.)

A dangerous irony, however, is that those who actually make a profession of the law, who are supposedly learned in the law and who undertake to fight for justice on behalf of others, are not as free to speak their minds about the law and the legal system as those who are less learned in the law. Lawyers, as a condition for admission to the profession, must swear or affirm, among other things, that they will “support the Constitution of the United States” and will “maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.” They must watch what they say, lest they be deemed by the administrators of justice to have “undermined the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.”

Was it a lawyer’s duty to “support” the U.S. Constitution when it permitted slavery? Was it a lawyer’s duty to “respect” the judicial officers on the U.S. Supreme Court who decided Dred Scott v. Sandford? Unjust laws and unjust decisions are not a thing of the past. The 16th Amendment, for example, permits a form of slavery and extortion. (About the only forms of taxation which arguably are not extortion are inheritance taxes and taxes on the unimproved value of land.) The war on drugs, while purporting to protect people from themselves, punishes mere vice as crime. Licensure laws infringe on the fundamental right to earn an honest living and inflate the consumer costs of critical services (e.g., legal and medical) to protect the incomes of the already-credentialed. The list goes on and on. A law is only as legitimate as it is just. Recognizing this truth is straight-up philosophical anarchism, which is both radical and conservative.

I believe there is such a thing as a good judge and a good cop, because I’ve met a few of them. The problem is that even the good judge and the good cop are constrained to apply and enforce evil laws to the detriment of their fellow human beings. An otherwise immoral exercise of coercion or violence doesn’t magically become moral just because it’s done by a member of the government pursuant to the government’s laws. “I was just following orders” was no excuse for the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials, and we all remain personally responsible for our actions and decisions. For all our talk about having a government of laws rather than men, the government consists solely of the men and women who make it up.

Long live the First Amendment’s recognition and protection of the unalienable, natural right to freedom of speech. This blog will need it.

5 Comments to “About”

  1. Good morning! I followed a trail of links to material on my site, and found your description of why Geoism is consistent with, and should be an organic part of, the Quaker testimonies! Wow! I have certainly thought that for some time now, but it has not been terribly easy to get this across to Friends. I am a member of the Belfast Area meeting in Maine, and the Program Director of a small but dynamic nonprofit devoted to spreading George’s ideas and demonstrating their contemporary importance. It would be a delight if you wanted to join our organization. We publish a journal, too — if you’ll send me your mailing address (and say you’re interested) I’ll send you the last few issues.

  2. Christoph says:

    I believe there is such a thing as a good judge and a good cop, because I’ve met a few of them. The problem is that even the good judge and the good cop are constrained to apply and enforce evil laws to the detriment of their fellow human beings.

    This is so true.

    It’s true even in business (I lost my last job because I protested against what I believed were fraudulent, deceptive selling practices based on material misrepresentation) in many companies, or in many endeavors aside from law. Granted, the repercussions are often more obvious in criminal law.

    The corruption in the world can weigh very heavily on men’s souls (and I don’t believe in souls). I don’t know much about your site’s purpose except for he entertaining story above, but any site that features Thomas Paine on the first page can’t be all bad.

  3. Spoken like a real attorney who grossly misunderstands what he is stating and unknowingly defending. When people can’t understand or appreciate the wordage they are using then they tend to fool themselves into believing something they are not aware of. Instead of making comparisons learn to see what is happening around you. Although your articles are historically intriguing they are misguiding and inconsistent, because of the interpretation and the use of wordage. We have to value words before we give them theoretical meaning. The signs are around us, but we fail to acknowledge them even though they are right in front of our faces. We have become a people that have a tendency to speak before thinking.

    • John Kindley says:

      I briefly debated whether to approve your comment because it appeared to have the same vacuity of content as the scores of spam comments I reject daily. But there’s no link identifying you so this is clearly not spam. So I’ll give you the chance to explain exactly what it is you’re saying? As it stands I have no idea what you’re talking about.


Leave a Reply


  • "[T]here is just nothing wrong with telling the American people the truth." - Allen v. United States

  • Lysander Spooner

    Henry George

    Harriet Tubman

    Sitting Bull

    Angelus Silesius

    Smedley Butler

    Rose Wilder Lane

    Albert Jay Nock

    Dora Marsden

    Leo Tolstoy

    Henry David Thoreau

    John Brown

    Karl Hess

    Levi Coffin

    Max Stirner

    Dorothy Day

    Ernst Jünger

    Thomas Paine