Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that property rights are so trivial and unimportant that it's okay for any politician with a bribe in his pocket and a wild hair up his ass to take your home at gunpoint, bulldoze it and build a parking lot where it used to be.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that property rights are of such paramount importance that anyone who creates a tool which might conceivably be used to violate them can be held liable if anyone does violate them.
Apparently the importance of property rights depends on just whose rights we're talking about -- your real ones, or the imagined ones of governments and corporations.
Even as an anarchist, I've generally been willing to work within the established order ... to attempt to keep the system to, or bring it back within, its constitutionally mandated limits. I've always figured that the stage could be set for anarchy by first achieving minimal government.
I was wrong.
To the extent that the Constitution can be treated as a "social contract" (it can't be -- but that's how the state advertises it), the Supreme Court has, over the last week, made it finally and abundantly clear that the state has no intention of allowing itself to be bound by the terms of that contract, in any particular or to any extent whatsoever.
Okay, fine. Screw the Supreme Court and the horse it rode in on. If the state is not bound by the "social contract," then neither are we. The contract is null and void for reason of non-performance by one party of the terms of said contract. The deal is off. The union subsisting, etc., etc., is hereby dissolved. If the nine doddering imbeciles who style themselves the "final arbiters" (yes, Robert, I am speaking to your conception) want my rights, I have but one answer for them: Molon labe, if you can.
Henceforth, the only flag I recognize is the black banner upon which nothing is written.
Res Publica Delenda Est!
Technorati Tags: Anarchism, Supreme Court