As a police officer or a member of
law enforcement, the idea granted to them is ‘service’ to the public. The slogan of the police used to be ‘To Serve
and Protect’, but it has been changed to ‘Community Commitment’. Being servants toward the safety of the
people, the police are lauded for the acts they do to protect us. The praise is proper if the extent of law
enforcement action was fulfilling the roles as they are viewed: protecting
individuals from criminal activity, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating
those who violated individual rights.
However, what must be looked at is whether or not those assumed views
about law enforcement are correct.
There are a list of ‘crimes’ that
individuals have been targeted for prosecution by the police, resulting in
fines, imprisonment or death; examples include: driving above the speed limit,
selling raw milk, collecting rain water, feeding the homeless, sodomy, not
wearing seat belts, selling single cigarettes, among other things. To the apologists who say ‘those laws are not
enforced regularly’, we must state ‘that these laws exist in the first
place’. Even if these laws are not
regularly enforced, they remain on the books as valid; that they are
selectively enforced shows in itself that they are not held as true harmful
actions insasmuch as actions that can be deemed punishable when wanted. Assault and battery gets charged almost every
time, while not wearing a seat belt isn’t sought as much. Law in such a case is a pragmatic tool to
shape non-aggressive behavior. The
lesson with such laws: do not perform an act, or are obligated perform an act,
otherwise the legal use of force from the State will force compliance; even if
you are not harming someone, you still better obey.
An extension of the issue regarding
these laws’ existence is how they are enforced.
If you put yourself as an individual in society, what would be done If
you are under suspicion of having a small amount of marijuana?— you could have
a no-knock raid in the night where your family is terrorized by armed men who
come in, kill your dog, restrain your family, potentially shoot you – all actions are rushed to ensure you didn’t
flush the drug; driving just fine, but had a single beer with dinner?—a drunk
driving checkpoint catching all traffic will ensure your non-reckless driving
continues to not harm anyone, and that you will be fined greatly to pay for all
the harm you did not cause. The law,
however, was broken.
Once in the system, if you cannot
provide your own defense and are not an attorney yourself, a court-appointed
attorney will be assigned. This
individual, because of workload, will only be able to dedicate a few minutes to
your case. In order to minimize punitive
harm, that attorney may advise you to take a plea deal, as paying fines is less
problematic than jail/prison time. Such
a course of action is also easier and quicker for the public defender swamped
with cases. Its effect upon you can be
life-altering in how you could be fined, to having a loss of liberty or even
life.
One may say ‘I don’t commit
‘criminal acts’ so I’m not affected’.
(outside the fact that it is really a statement of ignorance of the full
reach of the laws – see the list of punishable offenses aforementioned) You
still feel the effect. Victimless crimes
make victims of us all, more indirectly than directly.
A license is an allowance granted by
the State to say you have permission to conduct an act. Have a stylist who you trust and have had no
problems with? – if she didn’t get the new license, then your history and trust
with her is irrelevant. If you want to
pay someone who is not associated with a taxi company for transportation, then
there are companies for you, such as Uber or Lyft. However, there are those who block or want to
block those non-State licensed services.
Blocking the competition for rides, ensures that licensed taxis are the
sole car transport. If the
business/individual does not have the approved license, you do not have the
option of associating/conducting business with those you deem worthy of your
patronage.
Who pushes for licensing? – those
vested interests, such as other, established stylists and taxi owners, for to
make others have to pay that license fee, means that there is an extra cost of
business to keep out competition – if there are licenses to still be granted,
that the cap has not been reached. Who
enforces licensing laws? – the police.
Licensing laws by their nature prohibit individuals who are part of an
exchange, from participating in the exchange; this is achieved by the legal use
of force of the State.
Furthermore on victimless crimes
that regularly get prosecuted, a brief look at prostitution and drugs. Any work is an exchange between individuals
who agree to terms, and for the requested actions to be completed for one, the
other will get paid. This is the same
regardless if it is one with a strong back hired to dig a ditch, a surgeon to
remove anything from a tumor to excess skin, or for a prostitute to commit a
sex act. One pays the other for an act
to be performed. To paraphrase George
Carlin: selling’s legal; having sex is legal; why isn’t selling sex legal? The answer is because those in positions of
authority did not want prostitution (and pornography during the ‘social purity’
movement during the late 1800s) legal, and used their authority to put legal
restraints upon the options of individuals.
Why is the use of some drugs
illegal? It began in the early 1900s
with the racism against the Chinese, Mexicans and blacks; the Opium Exclusion
Act of 1909 targeted the opium that was smoked by Chinese immigrants, but not
the opium that was ate or injected – such as was done more by whites; marijuana
was made illegal because the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
[forerunner to the DEA] said marijuana was smoked by ‘negroes, Hispanics, jazz
musicians and entertainers whose satanic music seduced white women.’ Prohibition [of alcohol] began with a desire
for bettering human character, particularly with a religious fervor toward
godliness; it was eventually repealed.
The implementation of prohibition set the framework for criminal
activity; the continued prohibition of other drugs is similarly increasing
criminal activity. Instead of the mafia,
there are drug cartels.
Some of the criminal activity is
under the guise of legality: civil forfeiture is theft by the State, whereby an
individual has to prove (at their cost) that what was taken by the State, was
legally acquired. The State does not
have the [moral] right to steal one’s property; it grants itself the authority
to steal legally. Companies who profit
from drugs remaining illegal, and law enforcement whose budgets are heavily
funded to fight ‘the war on drugs’ have a vested interest in keeping drugs
illegal. These vested interest in
government and private organizations work together to use the force of the
State to limit options and force participation – if it was not for the State
being involved, any other group acting the same would be prosecuted for
racketeering.
The slogan is ‘Community Commitment’
because of for the sake of the community, the individual is damned. This has even been legally formalized in
cases such as Warren v. District of
Columbia "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty
to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular
individual citizen...", and Lynch v.
N.C. Department of Justice "Law enforcement agencies and personnel
have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead
their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection
of the general public."
However, you can be conscripted into
helping the police. If you refuse when
‘asked’ you will be committing a crime and can be punished. This is currently limited to state law, but
you can be arrested for not assisting the police – when ‘requested’ – in 46 of
the 50 states.
When is the help needed (legally
required)?—at the officer’s discretion.
In a similar manner of when some actions are deemed crimes and
punishable by law for causing ‘public harm’, so too can inaction be deemed punishable
by law. Why are some drugs illegal and
others not?—that is at the legislator’s discretion, including the discretion of
those pushing racist agendas decades ago.
Why are some sex acts illegal?—that, too, is at the legislator’s
discretion, including coupling religious interpretations regarding sex with
law. Sodomy was a felony for much of
United States history. The police
enforce the laws.
That the members of the police seek
to be ‘good and dutiful’ public servants is irrelevant, for good intentions are
irrelevant. Though manslaughter is not
as malevolent in intent as murder, the fact that another is killed (outside
self-defense) remains the same. That the
police officer signed up to protect individual rights is irrelevant when
enforcing laws and prosecuting people for not violating another’s rights.
Some people may have problems with
the act of sex being exchanged for money, or for sex outside the goal of
procreation. However, what concern of
that third-party’s opinion is it to the individuals who are directly involved
(actually having sex)? – why should the beneficial exchange be denied because
one not partaking the act, doesn’t like the act? Similar questions remain of a third-party’s
interference dictating one’s choice, when there are no acts of rights
violations being committed. This
includes drugs, alcohol, gambling and anything else that does not violate
another’s rights; entertainment was (as is) affected by regulations from back
in the social purity movement to the FCC today.
Defenders of the prohibitions state
the illegal acts are associated with actual rights-violations, such as theft to
pay for a drug habit or human trafficking for prostitution. However, theft and slavery are the actual
violations of rights, and would still be so if they were associated with other
reasoning for the acts, such as a thief wanting the newest electronics or
forced labor for textiles. There are no
calls (properly so) to stop people from upgrading to the newest phone, or from
purchasing new shirts because those intent on violating rights may do so to
achieve their ends.
This is not up to majority
opinion. Majorities change over
time. If at one time a society mandates
that acts cannot be allowed, then at another time the new-composition society
can mandate that some acts must be committed.
Shall we bring back the ruler’s ‘first night’ right? Is it right to be required to refuse service,
or legal requirement to serve a gay couple?—either way, free association is still
denied in the way a license denies the participating parties from pursuing
their own choices. Is it the morality or
legality that changes over time with respect to issues such as abortion,
capital punishment, slavery and other issues? – the morality is unchanged, but
the legality changed. There were laws
mandating the return of escaped slaves. It
was legal to be immoral and own slaves. Community
commitment without individual rights is the embracing of the laws of the status quo, and the status quo was created by those pushing their opinions influenced
with their prejudices toward others, toward acts, and to their own vested
interests – with the force of the law.
If the police and law enforcement
are truly wanting to protect individual rights, then it is by the act of not
following many of the laws that have been put in place, and to work toward the
repeal of these laws. Frederic Bastiat
stated “When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel
alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the
law.” Laws that go beyond protecting
individual rights, are no more than opinion with a gun… and legal force. Those laws were created to institutionalize
racist, religious and vested interests; should they be followed?
Whether you like it or not members
of law enforcement, this is the situation you are in with us, the individuals
in society: enforcing victimless crimes, making us individuals the victims of
you.
Will you choose to be legally
immoral, or morally illegal?
No comments:
Post a Comment