I received the following in reply to my article the other day about “law enforcement” and publish it here, in its entirety, with my replies interspersed:
“I have to tell you your article entitled “Law Enforcement” is probably one of the worst articles I’ve ever read in my life. It couldn’t be less informed if you actually put effort into it.”
How could it be less informed if I “actually put effort into it”?
“I won’t address everything in it because it would take all day, but I will address a few things:
1) A lot of the reason that there are laws about seatbelts and motorcycle helmets is because when you aren’t wearing either of those, and you crack your melon and go into a coma, you become an expense for the rest of us while you lay there and waste away for years.
Now, if we had a society where police came up on your bike accident on the highway, and you were already in a coma, and they just shoveled you to the side of the road to die for your own stupidity, then that would be different. We wouldn’t have any need for helmet laws. But I suspect if you were in a motorcycle crash without a helmet and somebody in the medical field didn’t do everything just right, you would be the first one to sue them.”
You make an interesting package deal. Let’s unpack it. First, you argue that seatbelt and helmet laws are necessary because otherwise I might “become an expense for the rest of us while you lay there and waste away for years.”
Well, I haven’t, first of all – and that vitiates any claim you make that I am obliged to wear a seatbelt (or eat my veggies or wear a Face Diaper) because it’s just an assertion about what might happen as opposed to what hasn’t. You might beat your wife – or abuse your kids. Do you think that possibility entitles the government to force you to attend counseling sessions or submit to regular screening interviews/inspections of yourself and your home, etc. . . . just to be “safe”?
If not, why not?
In the second place, I would not be “the first one to sue.” Because I don’t expect anyone else to pay my bills.
Like many in “law enforcement,” you seem to believe it’s right to pre-punish people for harms they have not caused . . . because they might. And then impute to them actions which they haven’t performed, such as “suing” others for harms they caused themselves.
Rather, I believe people are responsible for what they do – and that no one should be held responsible for anything done by others.
“And regarding the seatbelt, people are often carrying passengers and the driver needs to be in a seatbelt because it offers more control of the vehicle, especially going around turns that they took way too fast. That’s just a fact. And seatbelts DO save lives, and there are plenty of families out there that are appreciative of them because of it for somebody who otherwise would not have gotten a second chance.”
This is another generalized assertion that does not necessarily apply. In the first place, because most people don’t have accidents when they drive – and in the second, because few people are skilled enough to retain control during an accident. Thirdly, modern cars all have bucket seats and these prevent the driver from sliding over into the passenger seat.
Finally, you say (IN ALL CAPS) that seat belts DO “save lives.” So? They have also taken them – a fact as much as the one you’ve stated. What gives you or any other person the right to decide cost-benefit for others?
“2) since you were so opposed to laws, imagine if we had no DUI laws and people just ran head-on into families and killed them with no recourse. Having zero laws is about the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard in my life.”
And yet, notwithstanding all the laws prohibiting “drunk” driving, there is a lot of drunk driving. And does it matter whether a “drunk” ran the light and ran into you – or a senile old lady or a teenager on his phone?
I did not argue that there should be no laws. I argued that there should be no enforcement of tyrannical laws – i.e., those that punish people who’ve caused no harm to anyone but merely affronted “the law” – and that this “it’s the law” business empowers tyranny.
“3) I’m not really sure what you’re intense hatred is for police.”
I resent “law enforcement” – because I hate tyranny.
“Perhaps you got a speeding ticket that you didn’t feel that you deserved . . .”
Almost no one deserves these things you style “tickets.” Who deserves to be forced to hand over money because they drove faster than some arbitrary number on a sign? Or “violated” some other arbitrary/pedantic edict? I hold that people should be held accountable for the harms they cause. Period. And absent any harm caused, they have a right to be left in peace.
” . . . so now you hate people who run into a burning building to save somebody, or extract somebody out of a burning car at their own peril, or run towards a firefight while people like you are running away? I’d say that qualifies for hero status. The fact that you’re citing one case out of countless incident police handle on a daily basis around the nation is just ignorant.”
You mean like the “heroes” in Texas, recently? And the “heroes” who enforced the lockdowns and business closures and Face Diaper “mandates”? You attempt to malign me, saying “people like you are running away.” You don’t know me and have no idea what I have done – or not done. It’s a weak, petulant little jibe emanating from someone who seems to expect hero worship.
“4) police are not militarized just because they wear the latest defensive clothing and equipment.”
Such “defensive” equipment – body armor, multiple mags/web gear, etc. – was all available 50 years ago. Cops rarely wore such equipment 50 years ago. Or even 30 years ago. Because in those days, cops didn’t think they were the military. They didn’t look it, either. Today, they do – and it fosters the delusion (in their minds) that they are.
“On the one hand you’re going to scream for the Second Amendment, and everybody should be able to own everything they want including bazookas, but then you’re going to whine about cops trying to protect their bodies with equipment that works like Kevlar, knee pads, ballistic helmets, etc. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. “
Really? Do you not understand that there is a distinction between the rights of free citizens in a constitutional republic and armed government workers? AGWs deny free citizens the right to posses the same equipment they force those very citizens to pay for.
“In case you forgot the pulse nightclub shooting in Florida, there was a cop who took a bullet to the helmet and the Kevlar helmet saved his life. And it was a military style helmet. Should he not be afforded that piece of life-saving equipment just because it looks like something the military would wear? Police are being shot at in the streets just like soldiers are being shot at out in the field. There really is little difference. So crying about their equipment is no less ignorant than the last point I addressed.”
I am not among those asking anyone else to protect me – much less fleece me. If someone else wishes to have/wear body armor and so on, they have every right. But they have no right to make me pay for it. And if you cannot see the danger inherent in “suiting up” AGWs for war and the absurdity of equating what they do to “soldiers in the field” then it is no wonder why you cannot understand my leeriness of what is styled “law enforcement.”
“The simple fact remains that people like you, and these anti-police activists that are currently driving policy, are driving police away from the profession, and those that stay are opting to do absolutely nothing for fear of being sued. Thus violent crime is going through the roof. I wonder what you’re gonna do about that once there are no more police to protect society. Are you going to do it? I highly doubt that. In fact, it’s those that scream the loudest that are always the first to call the police when they need somebody. Good day.”
I am fully supportive of peace keeping – a thing qualitatively different than law enforcing. Good people are shunning the “profession,” as you style it, because good people want nothing to do with bullying and mulcting their fellow men on behalf of the state.
Violent crime is going through the roof because the culture is breeding violent people. It is not through the roof in areas still emotionally/psychologically sound; rural areas, for example. There is practically no violent crime where I live – where there are very few law enforcers but lots of heavily armed private citizens. A correlation, perhaps?
I would never bother to call – much less “scream” for a law enforcer in the event I have to deal with a violent criminal, in part because I am quite prepared to deal with such things and, secondarily, because law enforcement is only minutes (actually, more like 15-30 minutes) away when seconds count.
I need a law enforcer like a fish needs a bicycle.