The Ability to Determine One’s Own Destiny

By Kevin Joseph Tull

Search for more articles by or about this columnist

The ability to determine one’s own destiny, for good or bad, for better or worse, is as much the definition of freedom as any. I know that this definition may seem flawed by the fact that some may choose to do badly to others. I am not so naive to believe that there is no line of demarcation between this freedom and another person’s freedom. In fact, unlike most of my peers I believe there is only one line that a person cannot cross without destroying freedom. That line is the border between violating the natural rights of another human being and doing everything in your power to influence another human without violating their natural rights.

This area may sound gray (vague), but it is the determining line of what we already know naturally. In fact a peer of mine who doesn’t agree with me on where that line is has helped me to define it more clearly by commenting on my question of “Why isn’t ignorance of the law an excuse?” After all, there are more volumes of law than the most brilliant attorney could hope to learn in several lifetimes. My peer said that ignorance of the law could be an excuse because no one can hope nor is expected to know all written currently active law. My peer stated that there are several cases tried in our courts that have invalidated prosecution against defendants because there was no reasonable way they could have been expected to know the law and therefore that sufficed as reason enough to prevent the state from prosecution of those defendants.

My friend then said that that cannot be used as an excuse in all cases because it is reasonable to assume that crimes like murder, theft, fraud, assault, rape, molestation and destruction of property are all crimes that any reasonably sane person would know and therefore ignorance of these crimes as written active law is not an excuse that would prevent a defendant from being prosecuted.

This is the determining factor for people who follow the philosophy known as libertarian. To use a cliché, “this far and no farther.” I am no lawyer or legal scholar and yet I seem to realize something that invalidates the prosecution of most laws on the books. Ignorance of the law is the best excuse when it comes to any laws that individuals would not reasonably recognize as natural laws.

Now I am again not so naive as to believe that lawyers and the aristocracy (legislators), wouldn’t have recognized this major loophole in the law and worked frantically, years ago, to plug it. Otherwise the state could hardly prosecute anyone for violating such laws as possession and use of controlled substances or keeping an illegal fully automatic firearm as opposed to a legal handgun.

One guess, on my part, is that in order to control the subjects (people), the idea that because of the dissemination of information in regard to laws, such as the government informing the public that certain drug possession and use is illegal, then it is reasonable to assume that everyone knows, or should know, that it is a crime. Therefore the government (The State) can prosecute such crimes by reasonably expecting people to know them. Sort of like knowing that it is illegal to hunt the King’s deer because everyone should know that all the forest belongs to the King and therefore all the deer in it are the Kings as well.

The same idea can be applied to various occupations and professions. Laws that govern how an individual or company shall run a business are considered common knowledge throughout society by those persons who own and operate a business, therefore not knowing the laws that govern how to license a business, proper operation, and maintenance of collecting taxes for the Crown (government/state), cannot be violated with immunity from prosecution.

Again not being an attorney or legal scholar I am sure there are other legal argument against this premise that I offer. But isn’t it strange how the state can violate what the citizens are expected to know as natural law by using the excuse of prior knowledge of the laws against its subjects.

Showing great concern for me, and because of my arguments against the state, my friend compassionately suggested that I could leave the country. The debate about self-determination continues …