Law abuse precedes cop abuse

You want to reduce police shootings of black men, and prevent any possible retaliation? 

Get rid of your bs victimless crime laws. Those laws are  abusive and so their enforcers will be abusive.

So...

Stop harassing people for selling stuff on the street without a license.

Stop endangering lives on the road to enforce traffic and vehicle laws that do nothing but raise revenue for The State.

Get rid of the drug laws. and gun laws. They were enacted in the first place with racist intent. Using a drug or possessing a firearm does not victimize anybody else.

And get rid of the Drug War-induced  asset forfeiture laws in which innocent people see their cash, cars, or even homes taken from them without so much as being charged with a crime.

As it stands now, the police are REWARDED for harassing people, and they'll racially profile NOT because blacks are more likely to be criminals, but because they're more likely to be poor and have fewer resources to fight back with competent legal counsel. 

If we repeal victimless, abusive laws, the police will have fewer incentives to be abusive.

New Downsize DC Posts

Recent pieces by me:

• From the Downsize DC Foundation: Proof of Government Inefficiency on how the manufacturing sector became more productive with less labor, while government employment has exploded.
• Today's action item at DownsizeDC.org: Can Facts Be Heresies? On Hillary's silly statement on the Drug War.
  

Rebel Without Some Causes

It's easy to feel like a jerk or worse on Facebook. I've changed the names of the invitees, and also the exact name of the Causes, but this is how it goes:

"Jane Smith invited you to support the cause Real Men Don't Hit Women."

"Mary Johnson has invited you to support the cause End Child Porn."

My responses? Ignore, and Ignore.

The worst part is, I don't ignore every cause or group. I know some people do as a matter of policy, but I don't. Yet, I "Ignored" perhaps the two causes that every decent person should agree with, right?

But as to the child porn thing, it seems to me that child porn as an issue is focused primarily in getting the government to monitor people's websurfing habits and forcing every business with wi-fi to keep records of everyone who ever used the Internet on their property. Eradicating child porn is the excuse, but Big Brother is the goal.

It's why I'd never join an "End Meth Addiction" cause even though it would be great if all meth addicts kicked the habit. I see that "cause" and I jump to the conclusion that it's about escalating the War on Drugs, something I definitely do not endorse.

As to the violence against women cause, I clicked to find out more. I saw that the beneficiary of donations was actually a gay rights group committed to sensitivity training in the workplace. I'm not necessarily against that, but a) it didn't seem directly related to the Cause, and b) I couldn't tell looking at things briefly whether this group had a political agenda of imposing "civil rights" by attacking property rights and freedom of association. It does seem to me that this is what most "civil rights" groups are actually committed to. I don't have time to research everything in detail, so I decided to Ignore this cause.

I was also recently invited to join a group or Cause to support the Massachusetts cop who arrested Henry Louis Gates. I wasn't there and didn't pay much attention to the story. But even if I thought the cop correctly followed protocol, which many insist he did, I'd still be reluctant to defend the police in any instance. As Will Grigg and others note, police assert too much power and have been given too much authority these days. To "support" this cop would likely mischarcterize my general views regarding the state of law enforcement in America, which is decidedly negative.

This is also why I don't join groups or causes that "support the troops." Such organizations, at some point in their literature, suggest that the troops are protecting us or defending freedom. I believe, however, that instead they were deceived by politicians and are going through hell for no reason except to protect the interests of politicians. I only join "Support the Troops - Bring them home!" type causes.

Clash of Values

Small, impoverished nations can't really go to war against military superpowers in any case. But something about this statement from Bill Frist struck me as a bit odd: "People do not go to war with people who have saved their children's lives."

Right. People dependent on government welfare or foreign aid aren't resentful. They love the idleness and lack of opportunity. Cycles of dependency bring happiness and harmony. No riots, no terrorism. Good one.

Of course, he sensible solution to reducing poverty in places like Africa is to stop the foreign aid already! But the issue isn't about reducing poverty, it is about the moral insistence that government(s) must do something reduce poverty.

Imagine two options; a) declining poverty in a free market economy; b) a permanent and fairly high level of poverty with an activist government "committed" to eliminating poverty.

This is kind of like these options: a) declining drug abuse where drugs are de-criminalized; b) fairly high drug use with a government committed to eliminating poverty.

The problem with "a" in both instances is that it is value-neutral. At least "b" is a reflection of society's "values." Many people would prefer "b" in both instances even knowing they are bound to fail, because they don't want to live in a society where an a supposedly amoral government is unconcerned about poverty and drug abuse. Even if winning the "Wars" on Poverty and Drugs is impossible, we must still fight these wars to preserve our honor and integrity as a people. If we don't cling to ideals, what are we?

In actuality, however, this isn't a clash between immorality and morality, but rather a clash between the value of individual liberty and the value of collectivism. Even when collectivism fails on utilitarian grounds, collectivists press on. The thought of someone somewhere making a decision for himself or herself makes collectivists recoil in horror.