I subscribe heavily to the concept of Natural Law. I have not found a single definition with which I agree completely, but the premise works for me.
When Government imposes Law that is immoral, Citizens are placed in jeopardy. If we do the right thing, we may be punished. It is dangerous to be right when the Government is wrong, as has been said.
Consider: I have a neighbor whose family is having it financially rougher than am I. He is a blue collar guy, adept at most things in the remodeling realm. If I offer the man $1,000 to re-tile my bathroom, the State of Maryland asserts the power to fine and arrest the man, because he is not licensed to tile bathrooms. I’m not certain, but I’d bet they assert the power to somehow punish me in the transaction, as well.
How can any member of the Political Class justify this circumstance? They use the standard: We license contractors to ensure consumer safety argument.
To my mind, such licensing is an absolute violation of Natural Law and the free will of two people to enter into a contract. It also raises the cost of tiling my bathroom, if I must limit my options to State Approved contractors.
Try to operate a Charity in Maryland, collecting food from one group of people and delivering to another group, whether a food bank or directly to people whom you know need a little extra in the cupboard, the State of Maryland will come at you hard for not receiving their blessings (and paying their fees) to operate a Charity.
The list is long of the actions you may not do in Maryland, and we are not alone in the republic.
Is this not the ideal definition of a Government that is harmful to the People and justifiably changed?