Rule By Overseer

Legal System, Police Statism, Statism, Totalitarianism
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Radley Balko highlights the ridiculous case of a man arrested for interfering with police for filming them while they are on the job. Considering a passive observer, filming an arrest, to be “interfering” must be a special police corollary to the uncertainty principle that I missed in physics class. A friend asked the question, “how can one know what not to do?” This is a good question. If the laws on the books, and publicly clarified by the “authorities” are no shield, then what do we have?

As I mentioned before, police interactions with “civilians” are similar to the interactions between enslavers and slaves of the past. The rule on what can and cannot be done are set by the government official with whom you are interacting. Instead of rule by law, we have rule by overseer. Instead of viewing the police officer with whom you are speaking as a man as yourself, consider him a would-be slave master. He is has little reason to doubt his superiority to you. He has rights, and we have responsibilities.

How can it be otherwise? Whenever there is an asymmetry in recognized rights, there is great danger in interacting. During such interactions, the well-being of the oppressed is almost entirely dependent on the goodwill of the oppressor.

Consider the risks involved when an ordinary citizen has an interaction with the police. If a police officer is the violator, except in extremely egregious cases, nothing will happen to him. He will not be immediately fired after the accusation. A very bad outcome for a police officer will be him being fired, with no criminal record, and the ability to compete for a private sector job just like everyone else. Even in the case of him being prosecuted, he will likely be acquitted, and even if he is found guilty, he will be punished much less severely than an ordinary citizen.

On the other hand, consider the risk for a citizen. If a person with a regular job is arrested and held for several days, he may be fired from his job. An employer may not be able to afford to employ someone who is not at work, irrespective of the reason behind the absence. That means that even a misbehaving officer can ruin a person financially, even if that person is ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing. As I have mentioned before, this asymmetry is similar to that which existed between blacks and whites in the US (and especially the American South) prior to the middle of the 20th century. In such an environment, rather than being oppressive, segregation is actually desirable for the oppressed class. Unfortunately, the government does not permit mundanes, as the heroic William Norman Grigg calls ordinary citizens, to segregate themselves from the state.

Rule By Overseer Read Post »

Laugh at the State, Mock the Regime

Anti-Statism, Education, Humor, Police Statism
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Kathryn Muratore, James Ostrowski and I were recently discussing over email one proposal some people are bandying about as a response to the TSA naked scanner abomination (see Kathryn’s blog Stop TSA Scanners). The proposal is to serve the TSA by filing some kind of “Show Cause Order” in federal court, to demand the TSA “give a reason for them to continue to do these searches which are clearly unconstitutional”–thus you bury the TSA in paperwork and back them into a corner using this “Show Causes” maneuver. Now this sounds a little desperate and crankish to me, sort of like all these “common law court” nuisance liens the gold-fringe-on-the-“admiralty”-flag crowd like to file (which may be heroic, though futile, since the states just criminalize it).

But I don’t know; I’m not a litigator. Ostrowski’s view was: “I’m a big believer in direct action and not litigation. The best way to stop this is through a boycott and/or street theater–make fun of this odious practice.”

He has a good point. Earlier this year I was on a panel (discussed here) with Hoppe and DiLorenzo. In response to a question about the prospects for liberty, I noted the importance of economic literacy, in part to deflate the mistaken belief on the part of decent people that the state is necessary and legitimate. Without the tacit support of the state’s legitimacy, it could not exist. And this is why it is important to laugh at the state.  Hoppe agreed, saying he has actually considered featuring a libertarian comedian at an upcoming  event, and DiLorenzo explained that one reason he often mocks the state and its media cheerleaders is for this very purpose–he gave the example of ridiculing Rachel Maddow in a recent LRC post where he referred to her getting her “panties in a knot”. We need to show these people as buffoons and clowns and to make people take them less seriously. (See also the Mises Daily article Laughing at the Regime.)

So: laugh at them, mock them, ridicule them, jeer them, scoff. Do not take them seriously.

[Cross-posted from LRC]

Laugh at the State, Mock the Regime Read Post »

An Outrage By Our Neighbors To The North

Police Statism, Political Correctness, Private Crime, Racism
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

CTV Edmonton reports the case of a man convicted of “inciting racial hatred” when he burned a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple. This is a clear crime, but the crime is trespass and vandalism, not “inciting racial hatred.” Criminalizing some real or imagined scheme behind his criminal actions is not only unnecessary, it sows the seeds for more and more thoughts being banned. This is little different from prosecuting a religious extremist for inciting religious fervor.  Moreover, as a friend pointed out, in this day and age, burning a cross does not even incite racial hatred. It generates huge outpourings of goodwill for the victims, and widespread condemnation of the ideology behind the criminal behavior. That reaction has far better effects on race relations than prosecutions for thought crimes.

An Outrage By Our Neighbors To The North Read Post »

Legalize It _\|/_ But Don’t Tax Or Regulate It, Bro

Drug Policy, Humor, Police Statism, Pop Culture, Taxation, Victimless Crimes
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

“Should Be Legalized” is a a great, high quality parody of Eminem’s “Love The Way You Lie.” The video reminds us of the dangers of prohibition and urges Congress to legalize marijuana. I must, however, object to the video’s desire for pot to be regulated or taxed.

Legalize It _\|/_ But Don’t Tax Or Regulate It, Bro Read Post »

A Politician’s Response on the War on Drugs

Drug Policy, Police Statism, Victimless Crimes
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Recently, through DownsizeDC.org, I sent an email to Congressman John Linder, urging him to support an end to the war on drugs and the legalization of marijuana in California. I believe that move will do much to make both Californians and Mexicans safer. Predictably, our masters in Washington are more concerned with maintaining power than actually allowing people to freely make choices for themselves. The response, which should come as no surprise to any libertarian:

Dear Mr. Wicks:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the recent drug-related violence in Mexico.  I appreciate hearing from you, and I share your concerns.

In 2007, former President George W. Bush announced the Merida Initiative proposal, a coordinated effort between the United States, Mexico, and the countries of Central America to combat the threats of drug trafficking.  President Obama recently stated that in 2009, under the Merida Initiative, $700 million would be invested to support Mexico’s law enforcement and judicial personnel in the war on drugs.  This money will be spent in part on training personnel, equipment for counternarcotics forces, and information sharing.  Additionally, to increase border security the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tripling intelligence analysts and increasing the number of canine units operating along the Southwest border, as well as increasing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) staff in Mexico.

Our drug policy must be a comprehensive one, and we must continue to put pressure on producers throughout the Americas to ensure that they cannot sell their product in the United States or ship across our borders with impunity.  We also have an obligation to assist foreign governments with their efforts to stop the crime and violence associated with the drug trade, a trade primarily focused on meeting American demand for illicit drugs.  I believe that we must dedicate ourselves to winning the war on drugs and I will support legislation that attacks this serious threat to America’s health and national security on every front.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  If I can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,

John Linder
Member of Congress

Even people of fairly limited intelligence (i.e., congressmen) can see the clear line connecting the war on drugs to drug violence. It is well past time to stop assuming the drug warriors actually care at all about our lives. They care about their own power, and the power of the state on which they depend. If thousands must die and millions must be imprisoned, that’s just a cost of doing state business.

A Politician’s Response on the War on Drugs Read Post »

Scroll to Top