The Declaration of Indepedence

 

“…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …”

This quote from the Declaration of Independence refers to when any government starts to undermine the very purpose of protecting the life, freedoms, and happiness of the people, then, they have the right to change the government or remove it if things are excessively destructive.  Although Thomas Jefferson cleverly wrote the right the people have, perhaps with good intentions, it is not a power the people exercise freely today.  Some out of fear that if they revolt, they will be charged with civil disobedience, and they will be punished; others for lack of knowledge.  Foucault asserts that to achieve such alteration or abolishment, it takes creativity, which he calls a system of rules: it is not a mixture of order and freedom.  So, you cannot be oblivious to the most substantial system of human existence: economic, power, racial, and religious relations. 

Power is exercised through institutions such as the administration, police, army, schools, healthcare systems, etc., and these institutions are made to implement orders, mandates, rules, or laws and to punish those who don’t obey. These powers do not imply justice.  The definition of illegal to the state may mean legal to a person or vice versa. 

For example, let say federal agents caught a suspected ringleader of a mass operation that was plotting to harm a given city or nation.  Is it just or unjust by force (i.e. torture or threat to harm the suspect) in effort to extract the information from the suspect as to the whereabouts of the other operation participants?  In Bentham view, the founder of utilitarianism, this action would be just to protect the remainder of society. This fails to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of persons in its attempt to maximize total social welfare.

Regarding violence in general, Chomsky would argue that the use of violence and the creation of some degree of injustice can only itself be justified on the basis of the claim and the assessment which always ought to be undertaken with a great deal of skepticism that violence is being exercised because a more just result is going to be achieved. If it does not have that grounding, he states it is totally immoral.  Well, morality and law conflict and in my opinion that is why we have such a dilemma over the powers these institutions have over the people.  Regarding our recent surge in police brutality, the administration lacks credibility when it comes to addressing issues of justice, fairness and race.  In cases where death occurs as a result of police brutality, the victims will often attempt to argue a civil rights violation. The issue is that the language of the law is so abstract and often justice does not prevail because from one interpretation to another based on precedent, the victim’s family does not receive victory.  For example, they are reviewing precedent of the Eric Garner case for the George Floyd case.  In Garner, a local grand jury voted not to indict the officer, Daniel Pantaleo, and the DOJ declined to charge him after a five-year investigation because they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willingly and knowingly (that’s the abstract loophole) violated Garner’s civil rights. Yet, NYPD ultimately dismissed the officer due to his use of an illegal choke-hold.