Alright, it’s time for me to climb back onto my soap box. I’ve done gotten all riled up on another topic.
It’s the idea that we need police and laws to protect us. Protect us from what? Having to work things out between each other? Heaven forbid – we might actually have to talk to someone!
Here is my take on the “there ought to be a law” idea. I think it’s really very simple – before proposing another law, ask yourself these questions:
1. Would you be willing to empower someone else to kill over this issue?
2. Would you be willing to be killed because of this law?
Let’s face it, our legal system is so huge, so vast, that even seasoned veteran lawyers don’t know every law on the books. Congress, state governments, counties, and city governments add countless new laws every year, and rarely repeal an old one. The net result is that it is a virtual certainty that EVERYONE is guilty of breaking the law in some way – and judges love to point out to the condemned that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” That only means that the police state wins any time you give it a reason to challenge you.
So, do we need laws? A few, sure. But, I believe that most laws exist to keep the lazy and corrupt in a position of influence over the honest and moral. If we did away with the bulk of the laws, we wouldn’t need parasites – oh, I mean lawyers. Do you know that the US has 1/8th of the population of the planet – but over half of the lawyers? Those lawyers produce nothing to better the economy – they live off of the earnings and production of others.
Oh, I drifted away from my main points. Sorry. I was talking about the use of lethal force to uphold a law. Let’s take a look at an example – the stop sign.
So, this guy is driving along and totally doesn’t see a stop sign, but a cop sees him run it. At that point, the cop knows nothing other than that the stop sign has been run. What the cop doesn’t know is the guy is driving on a suspended licence, has outstanding warrants, and has drugs in the car. Still with me?
So, the cop flips on his lights and gives chase. The sign runner sees the lights, and begins flight in earnest – he doesn’t want to be caught because he knows there is a warrant, his licence is bad, and he has drugs in the car. So, the chase is on.
The sign runner crashes his car after a bit, gets out and starts running on foot. The cop yells for him to stop, but the sign runner doesn’t – and the cop is faced with a decision that cops across the country face hundreds of times a week – how far do I go to enforce the law? The cop gives chase, calling for backup if he hasn’t already. So far they aren’t near any “civilians”, but the sign runner is headed towards a school yard. So the cop draws his gun and yells again for the sign runner to stop. Remember, the cop still doesn’t know anything about the sign runner except that he ran the sign, and tried to avoid capture.
If he fires, that stop sign law has authorized the use of lethal force to enforce it. It doesn’t matter if he kills the sign runner or not, the use of lethal force was applied. That is the bottom line. EVERY law ultimately authorizes the use of lethal force to enforce it.
So, are you willing to be killed because you think there should be a law telling someone else how to live their life?
Are you willing to authorize someone else to use lethal force when your kid is in a car with friends from school, and the driver doesn’t realize how fast he’s driving until it’s too late?