Skip to main content

The State's Failure to the Free and the Silenced

By Matthew Hayward

In the land of liberty, a peculiar and troubling paradox exists. A citizen, once confined within the walls of a prison, is under the care and protection of the state. Upon release, they are thrust back into society, expected to fend for themselves, yet stripped of their fundamental rights to self-protection and participation in the democratic process.

The Second Amendment, a cornerstone of American freedom, is denied to many who have paid their debt to society. But the injustice doesn't end there. The right to vote, the very essence of a democratic society, is often withheld as well.

Imagine a bird, caged for years, finally set free but with clipped wings and a silenced song. Such is the plight of the released prisoner, expected to navigate life without the means to protect themselves or the voice to influence the society they rejoin.

The state's duty to protect does not end at the prison gate, nor does its obligation to uphold the principles of our Constitutional Republic. If a person is deemed unsafe or unready to have their rights, they should not be released. But if they are free, their rights must be fully restored.

The right to vote should not be suspended even if incarcerated. After all, the principles of a democratic system demand that every voice be heard, regardless of circumstance. To deny the vote is to silence a segment of the population, skewing the political landscape and undermining the very foundations of our great nation.

A Global Perspective:

In Canada, prisoners retain the right to vote, even while incarcerated. This policy aligns with the philosophy that the right to vote is fundamental and should not be denied.

Norway emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Prisoners retain the right to vote, and there is a focus on preparing inmates for life after prison, including restoring rights.

These countries' policies reflect a more nuanced approach to prisoners' rights, recognizing the importance of both the right to self-protection and the right to participate in the democratic process. They may provide valuable examples for reform and align more closely with the principles that define our society.

The state must either restore the rights or assume responsibility for the safety and voice of those it has disarmed and silenced. Anything less is a betrayal of the principles upon which this great nation was founded.




Labels:
Location: Olympia, WA, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...
1 comment
Read more