Today, the principle of the "rule of law" is accepted as a dogma that is not subject to discussion. As necessary, and more often without it, to emphasize that any process must be carried out within the framework of the law is a kind of trend and public consensus. There is a certain logical chain that, in one way or another, supports such attitudes towards the law. Are we bound by the law in any case? Do we have the right to break the law? And if we have the right to break the law, how often do we have the right to do so? Can we decide for ourselves which law can be broken? Indeed, this chain can be carried to the point of complete absurdity and the understanding will come by itself that the rule of law is rather a blessing than anything else.

I would like to offer an alternative reasoning. The state as such is a repressive mechanism, and in any state such a government can come, whose adopted law will fundamentally not correspond to our values, what then to do? What should such a citizen do? Unfortunately, there are too many examples of such laws; it is enough to mention Russia and its law on insulting the army, according to which the mention of war, the condemnation of war, etc. considered a crime. What should a citizen of Russia do? According to the prevailing opinion today, for those who do not agree with the path supported by the majority, therefore, for whom the law adopted by the state is unacceptable, the only way left is to leave their country and move to live where the values of the majority coincide with their own. This reasoning does not sound absurd as long as we are talking about units, but what if 10% of the 140 million population do not agree with the adopted law? What if 40% of a population of 1.5 billion disagree? What should 600 million people do if they do not agree with the law adopted by the state (for example, one family - one child) Where will 600 million people move to?

I have already said and I will say it again - the founding fathers and the fundamental understanding of their work were one of the rare opportunities to turn off the path of degradation. Why do I remember the founding fathers here? The third president of America and one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote that "law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual". Great words, But I ask you, is it not our duty to resist the will of tyranny? And why can't we consider a tyrant the one who violates the right of an individual? Then doesn't it automatically follow from this that the state as such is a tyrant?

I believe it is our duty not to submit to tyranny in any of its manifestations. In the form of laws, for example!

I think the time has come to recognize the thesis “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” as one of the cornerstones of our degradation. It's time to think about a better model of government than democracy. The time has come to think about the validity of a centralized state. Otherwise, you already know what will happen, but I repeat, we will disappear just like the Neanderthals.