“Obeying The Law Is For Suckers”

So says Derek Hunter, who makes several almost unanswerable points.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

If you watch the news, national or local, there is a disturbing percentage of our fellow Americans doing whatever the hell they want to do with little or no concern for the law. And the law has little or no concern for itself, at least when it comes to those charged with enforcing it.

Across the country, charges are being dropped against rioters and looters. Why? Many of those people in position to prosecute the guilty have no interest in doing so. Hell, many of them ran on the idea of not prosecuting people. What kind of idiot would vote for a district attorney who promised to let people get away with more? Well, from San Francisco to St. Louis, they did just that.

I wouldn’t mind it so much if the piles of human garbage being given a pass stayed within the boundaries of the jurisdictions electing these morons to not enforce the law, but the idiots who do cast those ballots inevitably flee to sane areas, those not overrun by mutants like them, because who wants to live in a place where stealing anything valued at less than $1000 is no big deal?

. . .

It’s so out of control that at this point you’d almost have to be an idiot to follow the law. Like the movie I mentioned, there are no consequences to disobeying the law … With police ordered to stand down, or pulling back on their own, the mob has gone off the rails. Why shouldn’t you? If your store is raided, hope you have good insurance. If you’re randomly attacked, hope you fall safely.

What are we paying taxes for? Democrats in these mob run areas are not only turning a blind eye to lawlessness, they’re cheering it along. But I bet they’d bring down every bit of the law on us if we didn’t pay property or income taxes. A tax protest would be beyond the pale, but break into a store, steal a TV bigger than your car, or pummel someone for not appreciating it with a brick and you’re a hero exercising your First Amendment rights. Don’t cut a check to Big Brother and you’ll find out just how tolerant the left is, even if you say you’re doing it in the name of “social justice.”

All this might not be a sign of “the end of the world,” but it’s the end of something. The people who produce are paying, the people who don’t are benefiting. The people paying the bills are trampled while the mob is cheered and protected. Democrats cheer, Republicans are either mumbling or silent. No country can survive long with circumstances like that. And no government – local, state, or federal – that allows it to continue deserves to.

There’s more at the link.

The only drawback to following Mr. Hunter’s suggestion is that, if we abandon the rule of law because others are doing so, we make ourselves subject to the same penalties and consequences as they do.  If we – and they – no longer have the protection that the law offers to the law-abiding, we – like them – have to suffer the consequences.  That’s worth thinking about, because those consequences can impair us for the rest of our lives;  and the rest of our lives might not last long.

The law was intended to be a structure within which almost everybody could function, provided they followed its precepts.  When that structure breaks down, anarchy results.  In anarchy, the strongest come out on top, and there’s no guarantee we’ll be among them.

The fact that others appear to have abandoned the rule of law doesn’t mean we should let them get away with it.  There’s no moral or ethical reason not to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property if necessary.  Sadly, though, in many jurisdictions that have twisted the law to suit their own ends, we may be prosecuted for doing so.  That being the case, there appear to be only three possible courses of action from a law-abiding perspective.

  1. Force the authorities to do their job and uphold the rule of law.
  2. Replace the authorities with others who will uphold the rule of law.
  3. Leave where you are, and move to an area where the authorities still uphold the rule of law.

Sadly, all of those steps carry costs, sometimes severe, and are probably not viable for many of us.

Therefore, in the absence of any practical, viable alternative, Mr. Hunter’s prescription becomes more and more attractive.  When the law won’t protect people, why should they be bound by it?  That certainly opens new possibilities for potential responses to the lawless;  a good deal more practical, and much less restricted, particularly if those employing them can remain unidentified while doing so.

I suspect the law-abandoning authorities haven’t thought that through yet.  They should.



  1. oh but we are the strongest. where do they get their food? us. water? us mostly. everything else? us. we just need the resolve to get it done, so far.

  2. The situation is basically the Curley Effect and Anarcho-Tyrrany writ large.

    The mob and criminal underclass supports these politicians, who in return support lax enforcement of the rules of society against them and cater to their demands in exchange for votes and power.

    However, should a person who is not a member of this political-criminal symbiosis dare to break the law – especially while defending themselves or their interests from the same criminal class – expect that person to be hammered by the same laws not inflicted on the criminal mob.

  3. It's actually anarcho-tyranny – the rioters get a pass but people going to church get hassled.

  4. There's a sub-group of conservatives that are anarchists. They prefer the idea "Zero-gov" because it sounds more polite. Zero-gov brings the implication that they really think government is necessary but that government should be the size that particle physicists study. Worldwide and historically, governments have proven over and over that they get too big and too corrupt. To paraphrase a well-known quote, like baby diapers, politicians need to be changed often and for the same reason.

    Historically, though, anarchy has not done any better. Historically, anarchy has been the rule of the strong over the weak. It has not been conducive to a society that gets by with trade and mutually beneficial arrangements.

  5. From my boots on the ground perspective, a broad swath of normally law-abiding citizens are champing at the bit to hoist the black flag and start fighting back. All it's going to take to set off the powder keg is a strongman who gives permission.

  6. Back up a little bit. I think the most important thing the author said was (paraphrased) "the only real sin is to not pay taxes. Everything else gets a pass"

    That observation cuts close to the heart of the issue and is not just rank cynicism.

    Under-funded public pension and healthcare insurance premiums for pre-Medicare aged retirees is a metastisizing cancer that is eating governmental units alive. The amount of money left for discretionary purposes like buying police cars, picking up garbage, paving streets and paying the wages of current city employees is evaporating. Of course the police are not policing. The cities and counties cannot afford it because of the monthly nut.

    I am not a lawyer, but in some places the seniority of an obligation determines where the obligation falls in the hierarchy of payment. Obligations to retired people invariably have greater seniority than obligations made to newer employees or residents.

    As the apple-cart tips end-over, legacy cities find themselves dunning productive citizens so they can forestall the inevitable end. Some places, like Illinois, don't have legal mechanisms to take public employees and the crushing burdens they are placing on governmental units into reorganization.

    I believe this is the energy source or underlying mechanism that is causing all of these crazy distortions in the normal order.

    Emotionally, it is analogous to a hemophiliac with his arm trapped in rubble. He can see the cut on his hand that is bleeding but he cannot quite twist around enough to put a tourniquet on his arm. He gets to slowly watch is life bleed away even though the "fix" would be simple if he weren't prevented from fixing it.

  7. I agree with Peter that violating the law because others do is nto a good idea.
    I do think it is prudent to take steps to be ready to violatee the law successfully if you need to, if you live in an area where it may be an issue.
    A few examples:
    1. Load your weapons wearing gloves, so that you don't leave fingerprints on shell casings, so that if you have to shoot and run, it will be harder to track you.
    2. Wear, or having ready to wear, a different hat, loose jacket, etc to change your appearance so it is harder for bad people, surveillance cameras, etc to follow you or alert others to your presence.
    3. Drive a common car and keep its appearance standard so that you don't stick out and can blend away easier. Note: I personally think it is never a good idea to put stickers, flags, etc on your vehicle – they draw attention in many ways, as well as making it more unique.

  8. Were the Founders alive today, with the motives and ideals that propelled them during the Revolution and its aftermath, ai believe not a single one would choose to be in gevernment. There simply is no incentive for a decent man or woman to become a legislator, judge, or executive.
    So… who will program the AI's?

  9. The law was intended to be a structure within which almost everybody could function, provided they followed its precepts.
    Part of the problem is that, as usual, the left would not agree with that statement. Marxists would say that the law is a tool used by the ruling classes to oppress the proletariat; maybe a bit more nuanced than that here but that's still the general idea. So when the left gets power …

  10. A very thought provoking post Peter, and from the great comment thread above, we have a lot to think about. There's much I'd like to add, but for reasons of OPSEC I don't talk about by phone or online, only in person. I will say that I've been prepping for many years, and there's a reason I've retired 170 miles from the nearest interstate freeway. Even our little town is deeply infected with the liberal disease, but they generally know to keep a low profile about it.
    As insane as our world seems to be getting, I think perspective is needed. We've always known the cities would burn first in any SHTF scenario. But for all the noise and mayhem, it's still a small minority of 330 million making that noise.
    I've been a pilot flying small planes since 1975, and from five or ten thousand feet, there is a whole lot of country out here that is NOT consumed with anarcho-tyranny. We are not ignoring what is happening to our government, but we are grey men, keeping a low profile and keeping our anger cold. When we are forced to act, we will do what is necessary for ourselves and those we are responsible for.
    Back in my college days I studied Kropotkin, Bakunin, Max Stirner, along with all the better known names in philosophy (BA philosophy 1976) and always considered myself inclined to libertarianism. 9-11 disabused me of that naive way of thinking. While it sounds wonderful in theory, like much of Marxist-Leninism, it fails miserably in application to our fallen species. I've been saying since 2008 that if our country survives the Obama years intact, it will be the ultimate testament to the wisdom of the founders. I think the verdict is still out on that. We have the Trumpocalypse in progress, and whether it succeeds or not, the process will be very ugly for a long time. We have about 100 or more years of "Progressivism" to clean up after, and it won't be easy.

  11. The whole point is that there IS no law. There are only connections and pull.

    At this point, the law is a noose we make and place around our own necks.

    When defense of home, self and family has become a revolutionary act, then so be it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *