‘Laws Restricting Nonviolent Activity, Are Acts of Aggression’

There is this idea in our society that has been bred into us through the media, government schools and culture, where Legalise must line up perfectly with traditions and social convention.  If something is frowned upon or taboo, you can rest assured that there is someone out there who thinks that it should be illegal.

When a particular activity or behavior starts to bother people in the kinds of societies that we have today, all too often those people are very quick to suggest that the proper solution to this problem is to throw that person in a cage.  That may sound kind of harsh, but that is exactly what you are advocating when you claim that something should be illegal.

In a world as delicate and complex as ours, does this really seem like a proper one-size- fits-all solution for our social problems, especially those where there is no violence, theft or fraud involved? (well, except for the ‘color of law’ attackers).  There is no dispute that violence, theft or fraud should be unlawful because no one wants to get hurt, or robbed, or murdered.

However, when you start getting into nonviolent action, where there has been no theft, is bringing aggression upon one or more of the people in the form of kidnap and imprisonment really going to make anyone safer?  Furthermore, is this an ethical, humane, or civilized way of treating nonviolent people?

There is no doubt that society has problems that need to be dealt with, but using imprisonment as a blanket solution for anything that may come along is a totally irresponsible and lazy way to do things.  In all honesty, this approach ensures that the problem will never be solved, because it prevents any real solutions from being developed and only works to make a non-complicated social issue complicated.

There are also many side effects of these policies which actually pose a serious threat to the health and safety of our entire population.  Many times these side effects are referred to as “unintended” consequences, but all of the outcomes of these actions are totally planned and expected.

When those with authority create Legalise that ban nonviolent actions and inanimate objects, they understand the implications of what they are doing, but they put those policies into effect anyway because they have a great deal to gain in this process.  This is why they are so reluctant to change, even in the face of obvious failure and massive public outcry.  The social problems that are created by prohibition give the establishment a lot of busy jobs and a constant excuse to violate the rights and privacy of those within its grasp.  This situation is just one of many preventable disasters that the STATE foments and allows to continue as a means of justifying its own existence.

Source: J.G. Vibes

Such is the nature of Corporatism.


  1. Joe,
    I know and agree with you. Persons sling the word ‘Democracy’ and ‘Law Enforcement’ around without a second thought that they’re talking Slavespeak.

    (For some reason ‘Comments’ are not coming into my email)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s