County Prosecutor Brian Thiede believes that “We would have a lawless nation if people were to vote their conscience.”

Is he sure we don’t have a “lawless nation?”

This is the exact problem with the belief in “Authority.”

The sum of Thiede’s words are “disregard your conscience [and obey the law].”

Whose conscience does he think he uses when he decides whether or not a “law” is justified?

Someone else’s? Does he completely disregard his own conscience and mindlessly obey the “law?”

What if the law is immoral, Thiede? Should we not vote our conscience, whether as juror or “citizen” ?

How does he even judge whether or not a law is immoral in order to figure out whether or not to vote for or against it? Does he even vote? What would be the point if he is meant to disregard his conscience, and is so worried about the content of everyone’s moral character (including his own, apparently)? Why not just blindly obey everything the State commands?

How could one ever come to any sort of ethical conclusion regarding whether or not to vote for or against a law? There cannot logically be an ethical guideline if one is to disregard their own conscience- the logical conclusion is one must blindly accept everything the State says is “law” as justified.

He raised the standard Statist concern, stating “we could have the jury who thinks that jihad is righteous, and if the San Bernadino shooters had not been killed, they’ll say, Let’s acquit.”

There are already people who think this, and who act on it. And what of obviously oppressive “lawful nations?” What of Saudi Arabia? What of North Korea? Should they be a “lawless nation,” or does Thiede believe every single one of their laws should be obeyed by the North Korean citizenry?

It’s true, there could be juries who think jihad is righteous. There could also potentially be juries who think shooting someone because they resisted your attempts to cage them for growing cannabis is justified.

Those anarchists!

What of the “founding fathers of the United States?”

What if they had not acted on their conscience in the face of what they viewed as authoritarian oppression? Should they have remained an “orderly, lawful nation?”

What of Gandhi? What of Harriet Tubman? What of Edward Snowden?

Should they have disregarded their conscience and obeyed the law?

“Lawful nations” such as The British Empire, The Third Reich, Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, etc., etc., have perpetuated some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity and furthest reaching banditry ever seen.

If being a “lawless nation” means that a person disregards the commands of the State for their own conscience, the various “lawless nations” have by far been the more moral individuals, and they are the more virtuous by definition, for even without specific example of an immoral law, the very idea of disregarding your own conscience, and commanding it of others, is in one word slavery.

Of course, the reality of the situation is that we each use our own judgment when deciding whether or not we are going to obey a “law,” or a man in black with a gun to our head, and whether or not we consider a law to be moral or immoral. We are a nation of outlaws.

Related:

Chicklas, Dana; Prosecutor says Mecosta man’s jury pamphlets could create ‘lawless nation’; Fox17online.com, December 10, 2015.

Chicklas, Dana; “I was speechless:” Man charged with felony for passing out jury rights fliers in front of courthouse; Fox17online.com; December 1, 2015.