By Matthew Hayward
9/19/2025
When Government Demands Papers We Refuse
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 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 dissolved and the people regain the right to resist. That is not romanticism. It is political theory the Founders drank deeply from when they drafted the argument for independence.
Jefferson wrote it plainly. The Declaration says whenever a government becomes destructive of the ends it was created to secure, the people have the right to alter or abolish it. Those words are not ceremonial. They are an existential claim about when ordinary obedience becomes moral complicity.
What that means now
This is a test of civic character. The mere existence of a court stay does not make an action right. It makes it a legal fight worth having and a moral fight worth choosing sides on. The threshold Locke and the Declaration describe is high. Prudence requires enormous restraint. That restraint does not equal acquiescence.
Resisting tyranny is a moral doctrine and a strategic posture. It demands clarity about ends and discipline about means. It also demands that any claim to defend liberty not collapse into lawlessness or arbitrary reprisal. The historical philosophers who justified rebellion did so on the basis of proportion, clear evidence of systemic wrongdoing, and the exhaustion of lawful remedies where lawful remedies were available and meaningful.
So be clear about this
We may not be under gas chambers or marching columns today. We should not deride the rhetoric of those who raise the alarm while also refusing to be lulled into normalization. When the state begins to treat whole communities as suspects, when checks on power fail, when courts and legislatures consolidate immunity for arbitrary seizures, the moral calculus changes. That change can justify resistance in principle. It does not license chaos. It demands strategy. It demands witnesses. It demands accountability. It demands moral seriousness.
A constrained moral claim
If government agents become an occupying force that seizes people without cause, if courts systematically ratify wholesale dispossession of life and liberty, and if the normal channels of redress are closed, the tradition Locke and the Declaration anchor allows the people to reclaim their security. That claim includes the moral right to defend innocent life against unlawful annihilation. It does not include exhortations to random violence. It does not provide tactical instruction. It is a final principle, not a playbook.
How to act so the principle matters
Make the moral argument public. Tie legal fights to broad civic pressure. Build durable institutions of accountability. Document every abuse. Fund serious test cases. Elect and remove officials who weaponize enforcement. Train journalists and lawyers to follow stops and checkpoints so abuses cannot be hidden. Make resistance costly to would be tyrants in votes, funds, reputation, and leverage.
Locke and the Declaration give us a last resort doctrine because they did not trust power. They demanded citizens who are awake enough to refuse being reduced to subjects. That refusal must be principled, public, and proportionate. It must preserve the distinction between defending liberty and becoming what we oppose.
Comments
Post a Comment