AGW Fails to Ticket Himself

9
1048
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On my way to my Undiapered dentist appointment, I came across an armed government worker – a “law enforcement officer” – openly flouting the law; which AGWs can do openly because they have impunity to do so. We can’t pull them over and extort money; not legally, anyhow.

They, of course, can pull us over.

It’s one of the many reasons why “law enforcement” (i.e., AGWs) have fallen into general disrepute. They enforce laws selectively; they enforce tyrannical laws – and they sometimes just make up laws and enforce them, too . . . with impunity.

This AGW demonstrates not only that he is above the law but that he considers the law he punishes others for disobeying to be idiotic.

Else he wouldn’t ignore it. Which he does – because he can.

Hut! Hut! Hut!

. . .

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:

EPautos
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!

Share Button

9 COMMENTS

  1. There is one way to fix the out of control enforcement arm of the gummint at whatever level. Repair the broken AGW feedback loop.

    A feedback loop in engineering terms requires measuring deviation from expected values, gain control to calibrate the response, and a corrective response. The same could be said of any legal process too I think.

    In the AGW case, he measurement is us, all watching, all holding accountable as we see deviations. We have much better means of documenting deviations and providing evidence of said deviation than at any previous time, and means to spread that information far and wide.

    Where is the calibration and corrective response? It is supposed to be in civil court, however two things prevent appropriate weighing (calibration) and corrective response. First is presumption of veracity upon an AGWs testimony. Second is qualified immunity. Remove both, you can get to a closed feedback loop situation, and human nature would be allowed to operate again at the AGW level. Enlightened self-interest would largely prevent over or under enforcement when observed, due to the human desire of AGWs to avoid direct personal financial consequences.

    Unfortunately, it would not be in the best interest of those who run the system that would need fixing to do so (lawyers, lawyers with robes, lawyers in elected office, AGWs styling themselves as Judge Dredd), so fixing will require an equal or greater force than the existing status-quo situation to correct the problem. That’s where my analysis stalls out.

    • Hi Crusty,

      Hmm, what do you think is more likely, institute corrective responses that would help (end qualified immunity, break up police unions, end the drug war, require personal liability insurance, etc…), or implement meaningless, virtue signaling nonsense like racial sensitivity training?

      Cheers,
      Jeremy

      • Oh, of course the lawyers elected to Congress will choose rhetoric over dialectic, talk over action. Of course Jeremy, they will choose virtue signalling, it costs them nothing other than their reputations as men, which they value somewhat less than their bank accounts. That is what a lawyer values above all, money = influence = power!

    • Good stuff, Crusty – I’ll go you one deeper:

      End “law enforcement” as such, because as such – without a correlation to moral right and wrong – as opposed to legal or not – you have an inherently dangerous instrument almost guaranteed to lead to abuse.

      Right and wrong can easily determined, too. Has harm been caused? If it has not, then whatever’s at issue should not be against the law. Much less “enforced.”

      • A totally civil law society, eh? I’d prefer the old Viking law as in Jorvik, Northumbria, you kill, you have to answer to the dead ones family, in kind. Sometimes becoming their serf was the punishment. A civil law society still requires law, and lawmakers I would think.

        Oh yes, there are waaay too many laws on the books, that’s what you get when the lawyers with constituencies start legislating, it is a conflict of interest IMHO to have lawyers writing laws. So, maybe do what Louisiana did in 1973, wipe the constitution clean and start over? Except, nowadays, that might lead to more Soviet style law than English common law. No good answers here.

  2. It’s because of stuff like this that I can’t attend any “Blue Lives Matter” rallies. It pisses me off enough when I’ve been selected for a traffic infraction, to realize that it may be the very last thing I’d do to call the police if I ever faced any actual threat to my own safety. Yet I also see the “defund the police” movement for what it is, and I definitely don’t want to see the ensuing chaos when they’re either completely or functionally eliminated. Police reform is needed, but neither of the extremes currently advocated are acceptable.

    • Hi Rich,

      Yup. A false paradigm has been established that says you’re either a fascist – and support “law enforcement” – or you’re an asshole, who supports violent thugs.

      If we didn’t have “law enforcement” but rather, had peacekeepers, both of the above problems would be addressed productively.

      Peaceful people would not have to fear peacekeepers – but they do have to fear law enforcement. Violent thugs, meanwhile, ought to fear peacekeepers.

LEAVE A REPLY