The revelations about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that essentially says that an officer of the law might enter any building at any time and force to repel the invasion is unlawful only cements the oft-opined sentiments I have made over the past few months. When they outlaw liberty, one has a choice of being a law-abiding slave, or a criminal. Systematically governments of every form have disposed with the rights of the people to better establish the control of the state, theoretically for the good of all, but rarely is that demonstrated.
The basic premise has always been that one's liberty is only limited by the infringement of liberties of others. That one might swing a fist so long as it does not come in contact with another. But, that is never quite enough for the state. There soon arrives on the scene a "sense" of danger to others so that making the fist is a threat, a form of violence in itself. that must be stricken from acceptable behavior. Then, since all action begins with thought, having thoughts of violence must be identified, reported and dealt with. Then, just to preserve the peace, the state will identify those who come from a particular group of individuals who have in the past demonstrated the thoughts that could have led to violence and that group must be identified, revealed and sequestered. This must be done to preserve the peace of the "just" and "righteous."
This is no longer theory. We are in the process of the devolution of society. We are standing midstream in the wave of the anti-liberty process. We are watching the political and social disintegration of that which made America not only great, but exceptional. Once we allowed these concepts to present themselves in our society without being shattered, smashed and roundly rejected we became susceptible to their arguments. Those who felt weak and unable to compete on a level playing field began to tip it, not so much in their direction, but away from those things that made the society strong.
The simplicity of this is amazing. The people we have charged with the protection of our system have no reason to protect it and in fact have every reason to demolish it. A system formed to empower the individual requires individuals to protect it. It was never considered by the founders of this system that the people themselves would become antagonistic to liberty. It would the the equivalent of discovering that birds would rather walk than fly. What they did not account for was the prospect that we could fool ourselves into believing that the pool into which we threw our taxes would become an ocean of largess from which to perpetually draw.
Now, unable to pay off our citizens with that promised largess, the government is seeking the means to lay the blame at the feet of the producers. It was the practice of letting too many people keep too much of their money that led to you not being able to continue to draw cash from them perpetually. In other words, your laziness can no longer be supported by the workers, so the workers must be punished. Recently, Tim Geithner stole the pension funds from the government workers to stave off the consequences of the previous congress from passing a budget. That seems like a horrible thing to do, but it is exactly what they have been doing to the rest of us for years. They stole the funds in the Social Security program to pay for all of the things they wanted and promised that they would "make us whole" too, when we retired. Why do the government workers think they should get a better deal than the rest of us? Because they believe they are special, that the raiders and plunderers are working with them against the rest of us. Well, unlike the old saying, in this case, there is no honor among thieves.
I know it seems like two issues have been addressed in this post, but if you take a look at it, they are the same. The power of the state enables the theft of the treasure. The only difference being what each of you treasure.