Replies

Lysander Spooner was a great mind from the 1800's. He really said it best. If you have a chance get his writings, he is a joy to read. He would be a rabid Freeper if he were here today. From Spooner, But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make suchprofessions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman. In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:

Good post! Thanks for sharing as it hits the nail on the head!

It may be time to reconsider how society should be policed. Uniformed police forces were first organized in the large Northeastern cities in the mid-19th Century as a response to rapid growth and the inability of part-time constables and night watch to preserve public order. Until about a century ago, with the exception of the large cities, law enforcement in most of America was the province of the sheriff, an elected official, and constables, also elected officials. There were no state or county police forces and Federal law enforcement was restricted to the U.S. Marshalls, who are officers of the Federal courts. There was no FBI, DEA, ATF, etc.

The older Anglo-American common law made all male citizens subject to duty as deputies upon the call of a sheriff or constable. This concept, shown in Western movies as a sheriff's posse, parallels the mandatory duty of all male citizens to serve in the militia. As communities like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia grew into major cities, sheriffs stopped relying on posses and started using men paid on a part-time basis as watchmen and deputies. These watchmen and deputies were later transformed into full time, professional forces, on the model of London's Metropolitan Police.

However, the urban police forces have had long and sad histories of corruption many decades before modern liberalism became the dominant ideology in most American cities. Since police pay was notoriously low, the temptation to secure income by cooperating with bootleggers, pimps, gambling house owners, and drug dealers was very strong. From the 1890s to the 1970s, the New York Police Department went through several widespread revelations of scandals that implicated hundreds of policemen of all ranks. Planting throwdown guns or narcotics on suspected criminals is not a new tactic, and police stations before 1960 were notorious for the "third degree" (torture) imposed on suspects.

The use of police as enforcers of "nanny state" regulations, such as seat belts and helmets for motorcyclists, is a development of the last 50 years. While the laws dealing with the so-called victimless crimes (except narcotics) have become milder and (in the case of pornography) virtual dead letters, government regulation of other personal behaviors, such as tobacco, racial prejudice, gun ownership, etc., has drastically increased. In the case of traffic laws, fines are financially lucrative, and with the proliferation of regulations, local police forces have ever increasing opportunities to pay for their operations.

Additionally, lowered moral and educational standards have had their effects on all of society, including LEOs. In the America that existed before 1960, adherence to Judeo-Christian morality was the norm and, while that Biblically based code was often violated even then, immoral behavior was frowned upon by society in general. Public schools for the most part taught the three Rs and American history, including the Constitution. Good manners were the norm and were taught in the home. Most officers were generally well mannered 20-30 years ago unless the citizen was obnoxious or belligerent. That is not the case today with most LEOs.

Can a modern society function without a uniformed police force? As bad as the current system is, it is probably better than having the Crips, the Bloods, and various other gangs controlling the streets of major cities. However, the abuses by police and the politicians who command them are a major problem that festers, irrespective of which major party controls the city halls, court houses, or state capitals.