The murder of George Floyd in Minnesota and subsequent protests have raised an interesting question for our county: how should we respond to tyranny in the modern era?
Make no mistake, Floyd’s murder is a sign of tyranny. He was killed by a government establishment drunk on power, run by people who believe themselves to be above the law: people who believe themselves to be untouchable.
The police have felt their power grow because they hold the key to their own discipline. The close professional relationship among judges, prosecutors and police is a devil's triangle of unchecked power, easy ways around problems and a lack of accountability.
In the days since Floyd’s murder, there have been protests that have bordered on, and occasionally crossing over into, riot territory.
These protests mean nothing to those in power, because it will eventually blow over, the protesters will go home, and nothing will have changed in the power structure that caused the problem in the first place.
They don’t feel threatened by these displays of anger.
That is really what these protests have been in recent years: anger. Nothing more, nothing less. That is not to say there isn’t justification for the outrage, but it does show those involved want little more than to express their anger in public like a child throwing a tantrum in a store.
I don’t see a movement to actually effect change.
I don’t see anyone with a plan to fix the problem.
I don’t see anyone moving to remove the cancer.
This leaves the citizens of the United States in a predicament: how do we create the change that has become so apparently needed? How do we, as a collective and as individuals, without governmental power, hold responsible those who committed these crimes and have allowed the perpetrators of abuse walk free of responsibility?
If one looks at our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and even the Declaration of Independence, one will see much of the language was lifted straight from the pages of the work of John Locke. What separated Locke from the man he is most often compared to, Thomas Hobbs, is Locke’s view on leviathan: the authority over man keeping him from entering a perpetual state of war. Hobbes viewed leviathan as a beast not to be trifled with. After all, one should not bite the hand that feeds him, and to overpower leviathan would simply throw man back into a state of war.
Locke, on the other hand, viewed leviathan as a two-sided agreement more than a beast that devours liberty. Man would give up some of his personal liberty to leviathan in exchange for security and shelter from nature and war. But, if leviathan were to break this deal by overreaching its power, it was the responsibility of the people to destroy it and begin again. Though it would be painful and cost a heavy toll, such a price was insignificant to leviathan growing and devouring man’s remaining liberty and dooming future generations to a life under an uncontrollable monster.
It is this idea that spawned the American Revolution. It is this idea that gave birth to the idea of a right to bear arms. We can no longer pretend such a right is reserved only for hunting and for sport. It was enumerated to guard against leviathan: to ensure it never devoured us.
If protesters of this unconscionable crime wanted to enact real change, they would stop burning their own city and burn the police station instead. They would not walk around with signs, but peacefully with rifles until leviathan retreats to its rightful place or roars back with a hail of gunfire. They would not chant for the guilty to be held responsible, they would demand the guilty walk out and answer for their actions.
Let me be clear, this is not a call for anarchy.
This is not a call for mob rule.
This is not a call for the king to be beheaded in the street.
But, until leviathan is fought back against with a showing of force, it will continue to grow and endanger us all.
As the late Dr. King wrote, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Until we understand the meaning of this and come to terms with the uncomfortable nature of such an undertaking, true change will never live.
Kommentare