If a group of people were to live on an island, who would govern who, how, and why? If person A suspected person B of possessing a deadly weapon (if this were a crime), then how could we justify person A searching person B? Whatever reason offered for justification of search and seizure, it also justifies person B searching person A. On this island, who would be the government? Who would rule? Whatever can justify the rule of person A can also justify the rule of person B. If one person is elected on the island, through some sort of Republic process, how is he justified in passing and enforcing laws? If an elected ruler passes a law that anyone to wear a hat is killed, would it not be equally justified for one dissident to make their own government, passing legislation that wearing hats is acceptable? A government may be defined as a person or a group trying to enforce a rule or regulation. And if one government can be formed by one person, with legislation passed that possessing bans a certain fashion of dress, so another one is not more wrong in making it legal. By what right would one government have the right to tell one person to do, any more than the one person would have the right to tell what the government to do? Is there anything intrinsically distinctive of either the individual or the government that allows one to control the other without restraint? If this individual opposed the state's regulation as much as the state opposed the individual's actions, how is one more justified in controlling the other? There can be no appeal to one being intrinsically right and one being intrinsically wrong: there have been just as many bad governments as there have been bad rebels. So, if a party of people lived on an island, who would govern who, and how could it possibly be justified?
Take into consideration the lack of justification for government to rule anyone on this island, as for the United States to rule anyone on this land. Just as a government on the island can oppose an individual's actions, so does our United States government oppose some of our actions, as they carry out their regulation. Use of Marijuana, a harmless practice, has been banned by the state. By what writ can the government jail Marijuana users, any more than Marijuana users can enforce their own regulation allowing Marijuana? If a police officer is justified in arresting members of society who do no harm but just commit a crime, then a citizen must be justified in arresting the government equally. There is no divine mandate given to anyone to rule, control, and kill others, be it any populace member or any government. The similarities between the hypothetical island scenario and the United States government are undeniable. The United States government has no right to rule me any more than I have a right to rule those people who make up the government. Nor are they justified in any of their legislation, and enforcing their legislation, whether it is outlawing murder, wearing hats, or believing what you want. The government has no right to pass such laws any more than I have the right to pass such laws.
The Republic is a type of government where the people vote for one person to rule all. This varies from other types of governments where, more or less, a ruler maintains their power. By maintaining power, I do not mean by campaigning, but rather by an army threatening the populace. Such a ruler may be known as a dictator or a monarch. However, there are some who stipulate that a king's rule is tyranny to the rule of an elected official. What can there be, honestly, to separate the rule of a dictator and the rule of an elected official? Historically, both are prone to commit the most atrocious acts, often defending themselves with the idea that they are defending their land. Furthermore, both presidents and kings have accepted bribery and corruption. What can there be to separate a Dictatorship and a Republic? It still gives one person, out of thousands, possibly millions, it gives this one person control over the rest of the populace. And whether or not a Constitution exists in this Monarchy or Republic, kings and presidents have both trampled them to pieces in the wake of their search for power and wealth. There is one solitary difference between a dictator and a president: one is elected, one is not. The similarities between these two, though, is endless: their cruel search for power, the history of their relentlessness in eliminating enemies, they rule a population without restrain or control, save the remnants of their conscience.
The United States' administration differs from that of a Latin Dictatorship in one way: how they are chosen. The United States goes through the process of election where we choose our president, but even this failed, as the majority voted against the president who seized power. If there is any proof of corruption of power, of how a president is nothing more than a dictator, then let it be this: our current president was voted against by the people, but he rules us anyway. His laws control our bodies, even though we did not choose him. George W. Bush is not in power because he was elected. He is in power because of his army, because of his secret, underground spy network which keeps tabs on +300 million American suspects. The difference between a Republic and a Dictatorship is election, but both governments give unfair power to one person to rule all people, and both are productive of heartless, cruel atrocities.
By what right does a police officer have to detain me, anymore than I have the right to detain the police officer? How is president more qualified to rule a populace than a dictator? Why is it so impossible to imagine a society that rules itself, with Direct Democracy, and no leaders or police officers?