I applaud that the New York Appellate Division wiped out the $500 million financial penalty against Donald Trump sought by the risible Attorney General Letitia James and assessed by Judge Arthur Engoron — but I cannot come to grips with how it is possible for those judges not to order the entire case dismissed. Perhaps that will come in the next phase, as James indicates she cannot simply accept the “L” and walk away; she plans to appeal, thereby potentially exposing herself to sanctions and requiring the State of New York to cover Trump’s legal expenses (both of which should absolutely occur). Engoron should also be removed from the bench.

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 millions in IRS tax levies while the IRS will hunt a regular citizen down, place a lien on their home, 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 do that state’s 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 Founders did create a Constitution with processes to address those issues.

But it should be noted that in the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson referenced John Locke’s idea: “…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 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 Rousseau. I’ve read a lot of Locke’s work because Jefferson drew heavily from Locke in crafting the Declaration of Independence — the document that launched our American experiment in Liberty.

Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government (1689), argued that a state’s legitimacy hinges on a social contract in which citizens consent to governance in order to protect their natural rights — namely, 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 a 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.