A Cinderella Story

Midnight, 4/16/09

The day had been one of my greatest single events in Liberty in my time as an activist. The DC Tea, first day interning at the LNC, along with an evening of reading Rand. It was beautiful...then the clock struck midnight and the coach turned back into a pumpkin. A friend had just gotten back from a hockey game after which he was followed for no reason by police. I made the statement that they were wrong to do that...that started a discussion.

The opposing parties were a neighbor, a self-proclaimed Democrat...ok, that shouldn't be too hard to win over, democrats love civil liberties....until that happy little democrat turns out to be a stereotypical New-York progressive...
The other party was a familiar foe, my French room mate. He and I had sparred on numerous issues, ranging from the economic crisis to gun rights. All were fought to a stand still, with him not budging from his Euro-Con statist position and my remaining behind Liberty.

12:01
The argument starts. The argument starts with my statement that if police an follow a man for no reason, what can they do? Could they follow him into his own home? They object, stating that there are penalties for that. I begin by stating that it's widely known that police break the law. I cited the scene everyone has experienced: A police car turns on his lights, goes through a red light, turns them off and proceeds on his way, in blatant ignorance of the law. There are penalties for that too, they are just ignored. They argue that he should be allowed, because he's a cop after all. I ask why, because he's still breaking the law isn't he? They state that it couldn't be prevented, because the law is not enforced.

I say that the law must be enforced, and propose that police be held responsible for their actions. They ask how to do it. This is where I use the classic Lib argument of personal choice and contract. Make the penalty of breaking their contract a real penalty, beyond simple firing. They ask what it is. I propose death, out of pure use of extremes.

"Who would become an officer then?," they ask. I say that only a man who would know he wouldn't break the law. Then we will have too few police officers, they say. To that I propose lowering the limit. 20 years in jail for running a red light. Still not enough, they say. I ask, but wouldn't more men become officers than at penalty of death? Yes, that seems true. Ok, lower it more. 1 year in jail, at the salary they make that would surely get enough officers and would fix our problem.

Yes, our problem is fixed, but what about those officer's families, what will they do if their husbands, fathers are in jail? I then ask a simple questions, "Was the marriage voluntary? Do abortion and adoption exist?". Well yes...I respond "The spouse chose to marry the office, knowing full-well the consequences of his possibly breaking the law. They gambled on the officer's character and lost. They accepted the risk, they will take the loss". But what about the social costs of this they ask? Social costs, I respond, have either of you read Atlas Shrugged? No, certainly not, they respond. I proceed to explain the idea of Rearden metal and the attempt to keep it from the market for "social costs". Should the metal have been produced? Of course, they respond, it helps society...

So we can't include the social costs into our reasoning. If we can ignore the social costs of thousands losing their jobs, then the wives and children of jailed police do not deserve to have their welfare discussed. But still, the cops should be allowed to go through red lights if they want...

I ask why. The response is typical: they put their lives on the line daily, why can't they go through a red light? it's the leat we can do for them. So putting your life on the line is all you need to break the law? I thought that police get paid to do their job, don't they? Well yes...Does that pay include the risk that they take? Yes, but that's not enough, they should have the right to do as they wish. I ask whether police have more rights than me, I can't do that. The so-called democrat states flatly: "Yes, and individuals do not represent the government. We cannot hold government responsible for the police, since they are some of its lowest officials" I ask whether congressmen can represent the government, they're only officials. They state that these are different. I oppose with the fact that an employee is an employee, regardless of position. He states that some men have more rights than others, that not all men are equal.

It's then that I realize that the man facing me is a progressive and would unbudgingly stand behind police rights to do anything they wish. I ask him to leave and he refuses, wanting to argue that the fact that the police have badges gives them greater rights. Before I had to insist he leave a knock came at the door and the opposition moved to watch TV with the neighbors. Before they leave the progressive takes the last word. He states that talking in definites is the fault of my argument. Nothing is definite. The door slams before I have a chance to respond.

Before their door closes I state two things to the progressive: 1. You're not a Democrat, a Democrat believes in rights of man and equality. 2. The Nazis and the Jews weren't equal...and look what happened.

Welcome to Liberty NorthWest

Welcome one and all to the newest Liberty blog on the web. Here we believe in the basic ideals of personal liberty. To live is to be free, that is each man has basic individual rights, regardless of beliefs, thoughts, and actions. Expect the first post some time 4/3.