Column by Alex R. Knight III.
Exclusive to STR
There’s been a lot of talk for quite some time now about police brutality, misconduct, and unaccountability. In fact, last year saw an unprecedented level of demonstrations, riots -- and even multiple shootings of police – in response to cop actions against the populace deemed to be abusive and outside of written code, often with little to hold them in check . . . except perhaps for a short paid vacation at taxpayer expense. In the media, any number of mainstream talking heads parrot the usual proposed non-remedies: Better training for cops, body cameras (which can always be shut off), federal intervention (taxpayer-funded watchers watching watchers), more racially-inclusive hiring practices. All tweaks of the overall socialist policing model (exactly analogous to any and all “reform” proposals concerning public [government] schools), and hence, all completely ineffectual methods of addressing the fundamental problem.
Or is there even a problem? I suppose, as with many things concerning government, that depends on which side of the barricades you are. Either way, there are a number of things I’ve noticed that just aren’t being talked about – and quite possibly with good reason . . . to a certain way of thinking.
Take a moment and ponder what would happen if cops were actually held accountable to the letter of the written codes and statutes (let’s us, at least, not dignify them by calling them “laws,” but rather, leave that designation where it belongs – to science) as they exist. I think it’s fairly clear to see that if such were the case, many more of them would be fired, sued, fined, and jailed than currently are. And that would invariably mean fewer cops – both in the initial purge, and in terms of future hiring. Let’s not forget that, as in virtually all things governmental, it’s the most sociopathic and psychopathic elements of society who are predominantly attracted towards such taxpayer-financed positions of hard-to-ever-challenge power. Making such venal individuals open to full liability greatly reduces the appeal of such occupations to them.
Thus, fewer cops means there must either then be far fewer codes, regulations, and statutes to enforce – or else many or even most of the existing ones will go unenforced. Meaning, of course, a weaker governing body that would soon be seen for precisely both what it is, and would then be: An entirely illegitimate band of ruling thugs, reduced to the status of a paper tiger. Freedom would begin to ensue, and society at large, no longer fearful of the politicians’ tax-collectors and gendarmes, would begin to step out of its cage. Some violently and with dishonest intentions themselves, true, but those on-the-job police remaining would likely – even if for no other reason than to try to recoup some sense of being needed – focus on such actual crime, instead of simply serving to back up the whims and opinions of the political class at gunpoint . . . and in turn, fill their coffers with more revenue than what is already extorted from the public via taxation.
Is it not clear now why it makes perfect sense -- from the bureaucratic perspective, even if from no other -- that police are [4] and remain [5] outlaws?
[6]
