Over-Policing Is Rooted in Over-Reliance on Politics
Sovereign Solutions Editor’s Note:
The featured article is quite the important one and a really well-written one to boot.
Political actions, which are necessarily violent, have subsumed fundamental free actions, or action of a voluntary nature.
Evidence of this is in the huge amounts of laws, regulations, rules, ordinances, and so many other forceful and coercive institutional devices [political action] that are designed to remove or deter violent, involuntary human action but all-too often also do the same to free and voluntary human action which involves no victims to a violent action [the former sort is actually helpful and towards justice while the latter is definitively not but rather towards injustice].
The question one must ask is this, though: do most of the laws and such actually function to only remove, reduce, and deter undesirable violent human action? The answer is, unfortunately, to the negative, as even cursory examination and casual anecdotal evidence these days would attest.
This all leads me to offer you some important quotes from the featured article that really go on to precisely expound upon these very important matters.
First, consider how we, as the “customers” of policing and other political services, have conflated, or at least permitted the conflation of, laws based on protecting and administering justice and laws based upon protecting and administering injustice, the latter usually being the artful byproduct ofRUBE GOLDBERG crony playersseeking a free lunch at somebody else’s expense:
Somehow the people have forgotten the law is not some benign tool or harmless guideline for the social engineering of society. They have forgotten that the law is always backed by the threat of force, and when a person understandably resists the law, even an unjust law, that person will most likely suffer and potentially die for upsetting “the will of the people” as carried out by law enforcement.
This gives a better basis upon which to look at the ongoing policing narratives plaguing the nation these days, does it not?
Can YOU really be intellectually honest with others and yourself by placing blame for policing and criminal problems on just one neat party, diametrically opposed to another, which is, as the narratives seem to go, blameless?
The author of this superb piece leaves us with some rays of hope, if only we individually meet our obligation to be truthful and courageous while also being resistant to the perennial magic do-nothing-cure-all siren-call promise of political action to mend, grease, and make better the intercourse of day-to-day human relations and exchange:
Positive and progressive change will not come from passively consenting at the ballot box or raucously marching to the sound of demagogues’ marching orders and laments. Change must come from within, person to person, day by day, helping to build the beautiful mosaic of community piece by piece.
One thing is for sure: more policing and, by extension, more politics, is NOT going to cure what ails this society. There is too much to do and too much to learn. We cannot outsource human relations and exchange. Political action DOES have its place; but its place is small and confined; can it really be said that this is the case today?
If these facts and reasoning are not debated and acted upon, then matters will only deteriorate further. THAT would be a 100% assured political promise if only a political creature would make it.
Following the July 7, 2016 shooting of several police officers in Dallas, DPD Police Chief David Brown has been thrust into the national spotlight, and understandably so. Chief Brown not only has a remarkably tragic personal story—in 2010 his 27-year-old son was shot by Dallas police on Father’s Day seven weeks after he became chief of the DPD—the reforms he has advanced during his tenure as head of the Dallas police have been praised by the likes of Radley Balko as a “national model for community policing.”
So, whether Chief David Brown likes it or not, he has become the face of law enforcement in the on-going debate over police brutality. And yesterday, he flipped the script of the debate in a way not often suggested by police unions or civil rights activists, saying, “We’re asking cops to do too much in this country. We are. We’re just asking us to do too much. Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve.”
Brown went on to say since there is not enough “funding” for mental health or drug addiction, the cops are expected to solve the issue. Failing schools and broken homes are supposed to be remedied by the cops too, Brown suggested, as he called for “other parts of our democracy” to help and “not put that burden all on law enforcement.”
I welcome Chief Brown’s suggestion with a qualifier. Indeed, the police are doing “too much” in this country. Yet, I worry Brown along with many civil right activists are caught in a catch-22. The more they call on our democracy to “do something” and pass more laws, the more the burden will necessarily fall upon the police to enforce such laws. For instance, when the Congressional Black Caucus called for gun control after the shootings in Louisiana, Minnesota, and Dallas, did they somehow think their calls for Congressional action would lead to fewer intrusive actions by the police?
How will passing more laws that make potential criminals out of more Americans ease the tension between police and citizenry? How will stripping Americans of more of their freedoms and wealth to fund government programs lead to greater freedom for the people?
My name is Matthew. I am founder of and manage Sovereign Liberty Solutions.
I am a proponent of free, voluntary association and expression. I understand that there is no single exception or excuse to violate this with the initiation of force, fraud, and coercion.
I welcome a genuine dialogue & seek information, news, analysis, and, of course, solutions, whether it be on the individual level or a more voluntary association [group] or even "national" one.