How Far Is Too Far?

When does Jefferson's "long train of abuses and usurpations" pull into the station?

I applaud that the New York Appellate Division overturned the financial penalty sought by the risible Letitia James and assessed by that loon, Arthur Engoron – but I cannot come to grips with the logic that, since the 550-million-dollar penalty was wiped out rather than reduced, how it is possible for those judges not to order the entire case dismissed. Maybe that comes in the next phase because James indicates she can’t just take the “L” and walk away, she is going to appeal and thereby open herself to potential sanctions and the State of New York to pay for Trump’s legal expenses (both of which should absolutely happen). Engoron should be removed from the bench as well.

At least that’s my opinion.

That got me to thinking about our roles as citizens when we see such injustice – or even when people like Hunter Biden and Al Sharpton simply ignore IRS millions in tax levies while the IRS will hunt a regular citizen down, place a lien on their homes and bankrupt them if they don’t pay a $50K tax bill.

So, my question is this: If a state obviously engages in unfair, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement of laws, what obligation to that state citizens have, if any?

I started off thinking the answer to that question was “none”, no obligation at all – America was founded on resistance to a “long train of abuses” but that seemed a little too anarchist because there is a certain level of deference required to sustain a civil society – which benefits us all – and the fact the Founders did create a constitution with processes to address those issues.

But it should be noted that in the Declaration, Jefferson did reference Locke’s idea that:

“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

I took to reading what philosophers have said about it over the centuries, and most philosophers agree that citizens have limited or no obligation to obey a state that enforces laws unfairly, arbitrarily, or capriciously. The extent of resistance - ranging from civil disobedience to revolution - depends on the philosopher’s framework, the degree of injustice, and the consequences of disobedience.

Most of our systems of government are based on the ideas of a social contract, as theorized by thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rosseau. I’ve read a lot of John Locke’s work because Thomas Jefferson drew much from Locke in his crafting of the Declaration of Independence – the document that started our American experiment in liberty.

Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government (1689), argues that a state’s legitimacy hinges on a social contract where citizens consent to governance to protect their natural rights—life, liberty, and property. When a state enforces laws unfairly, arbitrarily, or capriciously, it violates this contract, undermining its authority. Locke views such actions as a descent into tyranny, as they deviate from the rule of law and the common good. For Locke, arbitrary enforcement—lacking rational or just basis—signals a government’s failure to fulfill its purpose, relieving citizens of their moral obligation to obey.

Locke maintains that citizens are only bound to obey a government that upholds the social contract. If the state consistently acts against citizens’ rights through capricious laws or enforcement, it forfeits legitimacy. In such cases, Locke defends the right to resist, ranging from non-compliance to, in extreme cases, revolution. He emphasizes that resistance is justified only when injustices form an undeniable pattern, not for minor grievances, to prevent societal chaos. As he states, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins” (Second Treatise, §202), highlighting that arbitrary governance negates the law’s moral force.

Practically, Locke advises citizens to first pursue reform through legal or political channels. If these efforts fail and the state persists in unjust, arbitrary actions, citizens may disobey or overthrow the government to restore one aligned with natural rights. This framework influenced revolutionary movements, like the American Revolution, where colonists cited arbitrary governance as grounds for rebellion.

Locke’s philosophy thus underscores that citizens owe no loyalty to a state that betrays its contractual duty of prioritizing and protecting individual rights and rational governance over blind obedience.