When “Good Ideas” Become Lethal Policies

“The way the judge’s decision is worded, anyone who’s ever fired a gun on their property could open a commercial shooting range, and I don’t want that!”

That is very nearly a verbatim quote from a member of my local Township Board “defending” the decision to continue court action against the owner of a private shooting range for the heinous crime of allowing someone other than his family to shoot on his property occasionally, and for allowing the sound of that shooting to be heard from the neighbors’ property.

My regular readers will be able to easily pick out at least two major problems with that opening statement, but for those of you who are new to the concepts that I deal with on a regular basis, I’ll point them out for you:

1. “The way the judge’s decision is worded…” Judges don’t make law. The wording of the opinion cannot legalize or ban anything.

2. “…I don’t want that!” Excuse me? Since when does an official’s personal wishes justify a violation of basic property rights?

But what if someone is running dirt bikes on their property “constantly”? The very same meeting that aired the shameful quote that opened this article also heard a handful of people, irate over the fact that they’ve been complaining about a neighbor who does just that (or so they claim) for six months and the board “hasn’t done anything!”

Or what about “dangerous” dogs—such as pit bulls—one of which has mauled a local woman? Should they be allowed in a residential neighborhood? That question is currently before the Board of nearby Oxford Township.

Actually, the question that the Oxford Township Board is asking is not “should they be allowed?” but rather, “how can we ban them?”

Isn’t it a good idea to keep vicious dogs from attacking people? Isn’t it annoying to have what practically amounts to a motocross next door?

Of course!

For most people, that settles it. The government should do something!

No one stops to consider the question “does the government have the authority to do this?” “Is this within the jurisdiction of the Township Board?”

That’s because for most people, the idea of the government not having the authority to do something is a completely foreign idea!

Of course, where the concept of jurisdictional limits is foreign, so too is the concept of freedom.

Since most people’s idea of jurisdiction is limited to the concept that the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department can’t operate in Wayne County, I’ll go ahead and lay out the basics:

There are four basic levels of human jurisdiction, with varying sublevels within. I’m going to list them in order from the greatest amount of jurisdiction over the individual to the least.

1. The Individual. The individual is ultimately responsible for his or her actions and will answer to God for them. An individual has absolute control (from a human standpoint) over his or her actions.

2. The Family. The purpose of the family (in an oversimplified nutshell) is to prepare the individual to exercise proper self-rule. The Family (specifically parents) has a dangerous amount of authority nearing absolute power when the individual is young. This power is necessary for the early stages of a child’s life—before he or she is mature enough to exercise proper self-rule—but is devastating if unbalanced by the forces of kinship and parental love, which is why parental authority must remain in the hands of the Family.

3. The Church. Although the role of the Church has changed drastically since the days of priests functioning as intermediates between God and man, the Church still has a very important and distinct jurisdiction that is outside of the Family and Individual, while having limited power over them. The authority of the Church extends to those who have voluntarily placed themselves under it, but the Church’s ministerial jurisdiction extends over the entire earth insofar as it is working under biblical mandates and for the glory of God. This includes charitable efforts in general, educational efforts where the need exists, the exhortation of individuals to fulfill their duties, and the maintenance of public morality. The Church played a very active role, by the way, in the American Revolution, as well as the actual Founding that followed.

4. The State. The State has the worst reputation for trampling the others. It has the smallest jurisdiction, and its purpose is wonderfully stated in the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen united Colonies:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Emphasis mine.)

A very specific jurisdiction for the Federal Government was spelled out later in the Constitution, but remember that the ultimate jurisdictional bounds are above the Constitution, (which can, after all, be amended) and that the Founders were careful to make known in the very same declaration as quoted above:

“…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Obviously, God is sovereign over all. He instituted these jurisdictions in the first place.

I could write a lot more on this topic, but I’ll leave that for a book.

When the State (read: government at any level) crosses over into the jurisdiction of any of the other three, the result is (by definition) tyranny.

Back to the dirt bike issue: the township in this case considered an amendment to their existing (and already egregious) noise ordinance that would prohibit:

“The use or operation of any kind of racetrack, proving grounds, testing area or obstacle/racing course for motorcycles, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, motor vehicles, boats, racers, automobiles or motor vehicles of any kind…”

Sounds kind of good, doesn’t it? I mean, who wants a motocross next door?

The problem, as I pointed out to the board, is that using government power to deal with—at the very worst—an inconsiderate neighbor, is like using a howitzer to deal with a mosquito. Even if the mosquito carries malaria, a howitzer is the wrong tool to use. You’re going to have a lot of collateral damage.

In this case, the public hearing brought out the fact that there are eight or nine tracks (not professional) around the township, along with a number of hobbyists and professional mechanics who use their property as “proving grounds” for their machines, all without a problem. Those people would be shut down by the proposed ordinance amendment.

It’s called the law of unintended consequences.

Fortunately, the board did not pass the amendment. Unfortunately, they merely tabled it, rather than dumping it completely.

Any time an act of tyranny is perpetrated, (that is, when a branch, body, or official takes an action outside their proper jurisdictional limits) there will be negative, if not disastrous consequences.

Of course, you could say that it’s all a matter of perspective, and you’d be right. Allow me to clarify my previous statement:

The results of said act of tyranny would be damaging and possibly disastrous to a person or people who value freedom and liberty. To someone who is perfectly content to be a slave (and worshipper) of the government, tyranny is hardly something to worry about, as long as the government is working to “keep them safe”.

I assume that my readers are of the former group. If anyone finds themselves in the latter, I would advise that you stop wasting your time here and go back to studying your government school or public university material.

Examples of “good ideas” codified into “law” (most of them are not actually law due to their violation of the Constitution and the Laws of God) abound in America today.

Helping people who, because of injury, age, or some other circumstance are unable to provide for their families is not only a good idea, but is the duty of a Christian people. Trouble quickly ensues, however, when the government tries to step in and do the job. Here are just a few of the problems that we live with today because of government welfare programs, for example:

> Large portions of the money forcefully stolen for the welfare system are burned up in the bureaucratic atmosphere before it ever gets to the people for whom it is intended.

> Many, if not most, of the people who wind up receiving welfare are not people who are unable to provide for their families, but rather people who are too lazy or addicted to drugs to do so.

> As a result of the former two problems, the people who actually need the help are left without nearly enough, if they get any at all.

> On top of this, those who simply need a temporary helping hand have no incentive to get back on their own feet—it’s too easy to live off of the hard work of others.

Don’t tell me that the welfare system is “compassionate”! It’s illegal, and it’s a cruel hoax! Charity should be voluntary, not mandatory.

By the way, for those of you who still think that proponents of “welfare programs” are modern-day Robin Hoods, intent on “stealing from the evil rich to give to the downtrodden poor,” I’ll remind you that Robin Hood stole from corrupt government officials who got their money by robbing hard-working private citizens through taxation, and gave it back to those citizens. (I’m not recommending his methods!)

Welfare proponents are far closer to the greedy Sheriff of Nottingham than Robin Hood.

Another good example of a “good idea” (by now I’m sure you’ve caught on that “good idea” in quotation marks means that the idea may or may not actually be good) is so-called “safe storage” laws.

Do a web search for “merced pitchfork murders” or “Mary Carpenter” and you’ll see why gun locks, separate storage of guns and ammunition, and lack of access for qualified minors—while possibly a good idea if implemented at individual discretion, (depending on the gun and its intended usage)—is typically deadly when required across the board by governmental forces.

I could go on for a long time, listing “good ideas” that have been warped into government controls, but I think you get the point.

When the government oversteps its bounds—no matter how “good” the idea might sound—the people lose freedom and power-hungry politicians move ever closer to their ideal dream of complete control over all of our lives.

By the way, Kelo (the infamous Supreme Court opinion claiming that local governments could take your land and give it to a developer) did not start with a federal action. It didn’t start with a state action. It started with an action at a local level. The closest equivalent in my area is the township board. Maybe you have a village council or a city government. That’s where most of our freedom is lost.

We, as freedom loving citizens, have a duty to be aware of what our local government is doing and hold them accountable. If we don’t, there will soon be no freedom left to defend.