Lost in all of this is the one demonstrable trend that is noticeable and that affects us all—that as the number of laws and the number of peaceful activities that are regulated increase, the more these kinds of incidents take place. In the Garner case, if there were no arbitrary law against engaging in peaceful commerce without giving the state a cut, Garner would never have been confronted, would never have resisted and would never have been choked to death. Was a tax on cigarettes worth this man’s life? If it wasn’t—and it clearly wasn’t—then why does the law exist at all? The truth is that behind every law is the threat of force and death. In fact, some libertarians suggest appending the phrase “…or we will kill you” onto the end of every law. And while that hyperbolic suggestion might seem inflammatory and extreme, it’s true. Garner’s case shows that if you resist the state’s arbitrary laws, the state’s agents—the police—have the authority to use lethal force on you. This is why Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter, as reported by the Washington Post, believes that we should “never support a law (we) are not willing to kill to enforce.” This is the great lost point in all of the current hubbub. Are there instances in police brutality? Absolutely. Are there instances where the alleged victims of police brutality are themselves dangerous criminals? Absolutely. What is undeniable is that many more Americans are finding themselves to be non-violent criminals because of an ever-increasing array of laws banning peaceful activity. This is why mothers who heal their children with cannabis oil are being arrested. It’s why homeschooling parents are being tased and having their homes invaded in front of their children. It’s why toddlers are having flash grenades thrown into their cribs. We need to inject some dispassionate analysis into these events. We need to determine the facts in each individual case without trying to tie it to the larger story we want to tell. Most of all, we need to understand that the more laws there are, the more enforcement of them there must be. Regardless of what the “law and order” types want to believe, the failure to rein in the nanny state will eventually have consequences that will affect even them. I agree with Julie Borowski: the issue we have is one of laws, or more specifically of so many laws that inherently carry the threat of force and death in their enforcement.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:18:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015