The Audacity of Consistency

"Radical: late 14c. (adj.), in a medieval philosophical sense, from L.L. radicalis "of or having roots," from L. radix (gen. radicis) "root" (see radish)."

My recent conversion to libertarianism has left many of my friends shaking their heads. Calling taxes "theft" seems too extreme, too radical.

The philosophy is simple: No one is above the moral law.  No one.

The rule of law, in opposition to rex lex (a great name for the idea that the king is above the law), holds that no person is above the law.  If the king (or congress) passes a law, he, too, must obey it.

Ummm. Wrong Lex.

A recent example of the violation of the rule of law is how congress has passed a law requiring you to take off your shoes and get your balls fondled when you want to fly on a plane.  Our leaders have exempted themselves from this law.

Libertarianism takes the rule of law to the next logical level: natural law.  Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and other universal laws held by the community of man, apply to everyone.

We cannot abolish these laws by popular vote.  We cannot veto them if we have a government salary, or a shiny golden badge pinned to our shirts.  They apply to all of us.  No one is above the law.

All political philosophies, save libertarianism, operate under constant cognitive dissonance.  Murder, for example, in one case is terrorism, while in another case it's patriotism.  These logical fallacies inevitably lead their adherents to hypocrisy and a lack of empathy.

While our government holds itself exempt from obeying natural law, it cannot escape the consequences of that law.  It is a price our society pays for in blowback, loss of freedom, insecurity, and chaos.