The False Alternative of Dictatorship or Dictatorship

In opinion piece Andrew P. Napolitano presents us with the false alternative of dictatorship or dictatorship:

One is not truly free if one cannot leave the government. This applies to people as well as to political subdivisions. The forced retention of people or geographical units under the government’s monopolistic jurisdiction is totalitarian.

Without the threat of nullification and secession, there is no effective restraint on the feds.

Echoing the ideas of the sovereign citizen movement and the advocates of states’ rights, Napolitano argues that individuals and states should not be subject to laws that they consider unconstitutional. In practice, this means that states can defy the federal government in regard to issues such as contraception, same-sex marriage, or mixed-race marriage if they believe such rulings are unconstitutional.

In practice, this means that states may do anything they choose, and the federal government should not intervene. If a state wants to enact any rights-violating policy, it should be allowed to do so.  At the end of the day, Napolitano wants to restrain the feds by removing all restraints on the states. He wants us to believe that we will stop the federal government from becoming a dictatorship by allowing the states to become dictatorships.

Giving us a choice between forms of dictatorship isn’t a real choice. It is no different from a robber who demands your money or your life. He has given you a “choice,” but it is between two false alternatives. You have a right to both your money and your life. Similarly, our choice isn’t between two different forms of dictatorship. Our choice is between dictatorship and freedom.

When a state government enacts a rights-violating law, the federal government should intervene. When a local government enacts a rights-violating law, the state government should intervene. Indeed, many states, including Texas, have passed laws prohibiting local governments from enacting certain types of rights-violating laws.

The proper purpose of government at every level is the protection of individual rights—the freedom of each individual to live as he chooses so long as he respects the freedom of others to do the same. Promoting that idea, not nullification and secession, is the proper way to restrain the federal government.

Similar Posts

  • When we Disagree

    Rational people do not always agree on the proper course of action. They may not possess the same knowledge of the issue or put more emphasis on some facts. They may have different values or goals. When rational people disagree on the proper course of action, they attempt to persuade one another. They present facts…

  • Wanna Bet?

    The recent Supreme Court ruling striking down a federal law that prohibited most states from allowing betting on sporting events was a double-edged sword. While it struck down a right-violating law, it will do nothing to prevent states from violating individual rights. According to CNN, The court said the federal law violated constitutional principles limiting…

  • An Agency of Force

    Government is an agency of force. Everything it does is ultimately backed by physical coercion. Government dictates how much you should pay in taxes. Refuse to do so and somebody with a gun will show up to seize your property, throw you in jail, or both. In most locales, government dictates how you can use…

  • |

    The Failure to Discriminate

    Many conservatives oppose vaccine mandates, regardless of its source. They see no difference between a government mandate and a mandate issued by a private employer. The failure to discriminate—to recognize the differences between two or more things—isn’t surprising. Many conservatives do the same when they claim Big Tech is engaged in censorship. Certainly, mandates issued…

  • Rights do not Conflict

    The pandemic has exposed how widely misunderstood concepts like freedom and rights are. Many claim that rights conflict, and policy must balance there rights. For example, in a piece titled “COVID brings front and center the tug between individual rights and the public good,” the author writes: Why should anyone be allowed to spread a…