One of the reasons there’s an AGW Problem is that armed government workers are never held personally accountable for their atrocities. Imagine Hitler in the dock – had he been in the dock – and the German people put on the hook for the actions of Der Fuhrer.
The principle’s the same.
And so it was with an Arizona AGW named Tremaine Jackson, who was arrested last year for “pulling women over” – i.e., using the murderous threat of his government issued gun and badge – in order to sexually assault them. He was charged with 61 counts – probably a fraction of the total acts.
Well, no surprise, it seems the taxpayers of Maricopa County will be made to pay for Jackson’s crimes. A lawsuit has been filed that would hold the state/county “responsible” – not Jackson himself.
Which means the taxpayers will pay the scores of victims damages they didn’t cause.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to noodle out that if these “heroes” – now being replaced in the pantheon by health heroes – were held personally (as well as criminally) liable, and faced ruin unto the third generation – there might be less Hut! Hut! Hutting! and serial raping.
But – whoops – that serve and protect “civilians” . . . and neither of those things are in the interests of AGWs, despite what you read on the side of their cruisers.
. . .
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like an ear tag – custom made! – just ask and it will be delivered.
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!
Which unfortunately is simply an extension of perhaps the most insidious aspect of the modern cultural paradigm. That no one is responsible for anything if enough circuitous irrational “logic” can be applied to determine otherwise. It’s not your fault you majored on Art Appreciation after borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so, and now can’t find employment suitable to repay such debt. It’s not your fault that you lost your job because you can’t seem to put down your cell phone, it’s because of racism, sexism, or “capitalism”. It’s not your fault you eat whatever trash you prefer, with piles of sugar and chemicals in it, and wrecked your health. Nothing bad in your life is your fault.
The quickest simplest solution is to use the officers saved retirements, annual leave, accrued sick time,and pension benefits and any and all savings as the fort source of compensation for victims. Also require officers to purchase malpractice insurance like doctors and insurance agents. Guarantee you see immediate reduction in abuse by AGW when they know it’s their $ future on the line.
I like the insurance idea. But that makes the insurance companies, drivers of police policy, which might not be the best option.
The personal funding route isn’t going to happen, due to the nature of the job and the police unions. Not to mention one could end up with a serious shortage of people willing to do the job. Under current conditions, that might sound appealing, but it has down sides.
What I’d rather see, is for policing to be made private. A private police force would HAVE to pay attention to the various issues, or go out of business. Also competition would help to keep the quality higher, and the costs lower. Just as it does in any non state/monopoly system.
Going back to a peace officer system, rather than the current law enforcement, would go a long way towards returning the profession to what it once was.
Equality before the law strikes me as a reasonable standard. If it’s illegal for me to “speed” then it ought to be just as illegal for an AGW to do the same – and that means subject to the same punishment. Of course, it isn’t. It is technically illegal for an AGW to “speed” but the AGW can “speed” with near-impunity. That is the problem – and it scales.
AGWs are held to a much looser, fare more forgiving standard – for everything. This is intolerable because it is inequitable on the face of it. No one should be held to a lesser standard as regards personal accountability for wrongdoing. That is a guarantee more wrongdoing will occur under color of law, as in MN.
As regards law enforcers, it also guarantees “wrongdoing” types will be attracted to the profession. Bullies, who are looking for an opportunity to do and get away with what they like to do but don’t get away with (as much) when not acting color of law.
More deeply, the whole idea of “law enforcing” and even “policing” ought to be chucked.
People have an equal right to have their rights respected – and that’s the end of the natural law. No “crimes” absent victims (i.e., rights violated). This standard alone would probably eliminate 95 percent of the abuses currently performed under color of law. By eliminating the pretext for it. Most of us ought to be able to live in a state of indifference to “the law” as most of us do not violate the moral/natural law (i.e., cause harm to others).
Put another way, it isn’t necessary and certainly isn’t moral to have, in effect, a standing army of police herding people’s behavior – the majority of which isn’t criminal (as defined by their having caused harm).
A body of criminal/civil law premised on the “harm caused” standard would suffice to adjudicate disputes and hold people accountable for harms caused. A small force of peace-keepers could be formed to deal with the small number of actual crimes that occur. This force could be financed by voluntary subscriptions, in the manner of any other valuable service – and absent the crushing burden of illegitimate taxes on everything else – a sufficiency of subscribers would be easily found.
Yes, private police would be best, but that’s not going to happen any time soon. Requiring police officers to carry liability insurance seems like a no-brainer. If you can kill or seriously injure someone by doing your job, it is absurd that the risk you pose, and compensation for harm caused, can be passed onto society as a whole. As for the cost, total tax dollar expenditure would be lower if cops were required to carry liability insurance. It would be simple enough for the insurance companies to assess financial risk correlated to behavior and determine the price to cover a “good” cop. Their salaries could simply be adjusted to compensate for the out of pocket expenses. “Bad” cops would be financially punished and maybe priced out of the job. All cops would have an incentive to lower the actual cost of the policy because they could keep the difference between the standard policy and their own. As for insurance companies dictating policy, that would be much better than what we have now. Driven by profit, their primary goal would be cost reduction, which necessarily means harm reduction.
Of course, the unions, politicians and police departments will cry foul, claim it will be too expensive, discourage cops from joining the force, create barriers to good policing, etc… All of this is bullshit. The cost savings of eliminating taxpayer funded settlements would dwarf the cost of the extra salary required to make such a plan palatable to existing and potential police officers. Such a policy would discourage “bad” cops from seeking a job, but that’s a good thing. There is no reason why it would discourage interest in police “work” per se, it may even encourage more of a “peace officer” mindset. Finally, “barriers” to the type of policing practiced today NEED to be erected.
The other component required is the elimination of qualified immunity, which amounts to near total immunity, as prosecutors need cops to be on “their” side. The objections to these ideas are about control and power, period. They will dress up their naked self interest in the guise of concern for safety, cost and autonomy, all of which is bullshit.
Good points Jeremy. But looking at the insurance mafia, I’d be careful of perverse incentives. Look at what they have managed to inflict one the the auto industry, “health care” and pretty much anything else they touch. Granted, much of that is achieved by owning a coercive government, but its something to keep in mind, none the less.
We really don’t need the massive standing army of AGW’s that we have. But a subscription based private policing service would be useful in many regards. Bonding the field members of that service, would be only natural. Why do we have so many? Obviously, to back up the gang of thieves and murderers, who plunder our productive class.
Nor would they have any special immunity. They are simply providing a service to their subscriber base.
In a way, of course, we already have subscription based private policing – i.e., security guards. Of course, they haven’t got any authority that goes beyond the boundary of their employer’s property. But that is arguably a good thing in some ways, obviously.
There is a built-in limit to the harm they can cause, for one.
But how to deal with issues/conflicts arising between property owners?
It’s a difficult issue that needs to be fleshed out.
“But how to deal with issues/conflicts arising between property owners?”
There’s already quite a lot of literature on this topic. Here’s a sampling.
The second book, “Anarchy and the Law”, is a collection of essays from many authors.
Eric, there is *extensive* discussion of the nuts and bolts of that in Rothbards and Professor Walter Blocks writing (to name only two of VERY many such people).
The basic idea is that of arbitration. Professional arbitrators, would be used to reach an agreement between the parties.
Given that their reputation is on the line, they would tend to be non partisan, and have insight and wisdom.
This has been extensively studied, and it would work at least as well as the current judicial system (if not better) and would be much more accountable. Not to mention non State based.
This is just a TINY overview of the available literature on this topic.
Yes, in general, any Government agency is responsible for the misconduct of its pets.
And Eric, Germany WAS held responsible for the perceived as well as the actual crimes of the Third Reich. What the Allied and Soviet forces didn’t blow to smithereens, they hauled off as “reparations”. Furthermore, millions of German POWs, languishing in both the Soviet Gulags and the “Rheinwiesenlager”, which were mostly open-air penned in areas where the German POWs, now designated “Disarmed Enemy Forces” to give legal pretext to mistreat them, IF they survived, endured years of slave labor, never mind how badly they were needed back home to rebuild a shattered Germany.
Furthermore, over the phony “Sechs Millionen Juden” that supposedly perished due to Nazi perfidy, the Federal Republic of Germany is STILL, after 75 years, paying out billions of DM to Holocaust “survivors”, some THREE MILLION whom have magically lived to what must be an incredibly ripe old age to be present in those numbers. This in addition to GIVING Israel FOUR missile submarines at the expense of the German taxpayer.
So, yes, very much precedence exists, it’s actual legality and/or morality be damned.