by Joshua Ferguson
“The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.”
This idea is straightforward and simple, so how did Mr. Sarwark get it so entirely wrong?
By tweeting out legal codes in response to seeing armed civilians protecting their private property from trespassers.
This appears to be a Class D felony in Missouri, a violation of 571.030 RSMo, subsection 1, subdivision (4), Unlawful use of weapons.
“knowingly exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner” https://t.co/W0NbrkaXIk
— Nicholas Sarwark (@nsarwark) June 29, 2020
“Us feeling like we’re walking on a street that’s private property isn’t that big of a deal. Because it’s a gated off special community, they also have to feel the (sic) uncomfortable about what people are saying when talking about change,” said Aldridge.
Ah yes, “peaceful protesters”. I know.
BUT, and bear with me here, when you trespass into a private neighborhood with the sole intent of making people uncomfortable, after weeks of news story after news story of protests turning into mob violence & looting while shouting “eat the rich” and “who’s streets, our streets” I think we can dispense with the “peaceful” charade because in many eyes things only look peaceful until they’re CHAZ.
Despite the photos/videos being available online for all to see of Democrat lawyers arming themselves to protect their property with police nowhere to be seen, too many libertarians were focused on trigger discipline to see the larger picture of what was happening. Mr. Sarwark, however, took it to a whole new level of statism.
Yes, by ignoring the context of the situation you could interpret Missouri statute 571.030 RSMo, subsection 1, subdivision (4), “Unlawful use of weapons” to apply to the armed civilians protecting their property but are libertarians now in the business of using laws to dictate our principles?
Is the Chair of the Libertarian Party now going to argue that all people who possess 1 & 1/2 ounces of weed in Missouri are violating a Class C felony in response to people supporting drug legalization?
Somehow I doubt it.
Like those who use democracy only when it suits their ends, here we have Sarwark similarly attempting to weaponize the law for woke points.
“Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
I expected the Chair of the Libertarian Party to choose private property over trespassers. I expected the Chair to choose self-defense over vague gun laws used to over-criminalize our society and chip away at our rights. I expected the Chair to honestly keep true to the very pledge he took in order to be a member of the party he chairs.
I guess I expected principles from the “Party of Principle”. That’s my mistake which I won’t make again.
The most frustrating part of this whole episode is that we are living through a moment in history that has the potential to wake countless up from their government induced sleep. It’s too bad the head of the Libertarian Party constantly misses this point in his near constant rush to virtue signal to the outrage mob.