-Caveat Lector-

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Send reply to:          "Mises.org Article" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From:                   "Mises.org Article" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:                [Mises Daily]  Dangerous Laws
Date sent:              Mon, 14 May 2001 14:06:47 -0500

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=677

Dangerous Laws

by Ray Haynes

[May 14, 2001]

Are we losing our freedom? Are we, as a society, losing our ability to distinguish
between what we don't like and what ought to be criminal? Every day, we see some
glorious scheme being proposed to make us all safer, healthier, or wealthier, or to
give us whiter teeth. To evaluate whether violating that law ought to be a crime, we
need to ask: "Are you really willing to shoot someone over that?"

Before you say, "We're not going to be shooting anyone for smoking in public/not
wearing a seatbelt/not wearing a helmet/not hiring the proper demographic in his
office; we're only talking about a $50/$100/$250 fine!" think: "What if they won't
pay their fine?" The response, "Then they'll have to appear in court, and the court
will make them pay." The reply, "But what if they still refuse to comply with the
court order?" "Then they'll be thrown in jail."

Even further, what if they refuse to allow the police in their home, or refuse to
pull over their car when the officers try to arrest them? What if they are so tired
of being nitpicked to death by nanny-statism that they just snap and  refuse to be
taken alive? Oops. At some point, somewhere along the way, if something is made a
crime, someone may have to shoot somebody to enforce the law.

Of course, most people dismiss this argument as unrealistic and far-fetched. But a
couple of weeks ago, this premise was proved right (again).

You probably heard about the man who was shot in Cincinnati in April by the police.
This incident spawned several days of racial unrest and rioting. Do you know what the
underlying reason for the death of this young man was? He wasn't wearing his seat
belt.

Of course, it wasn't quite that simple. He had received several seat-belt violations
and hadn't paid any of his tickets. He had refused to respond to court orders. So,
when they pulled him over on that fateful day, all the police knew about him was that
there was a warrant for his arrest. They didn't know at the time that it was for
seat-belt violations.

As for the man, we don't know what he was thinking, exactly, but he clearly didn't
want to be arrested by the police. He took off in his car and led the police on a
high-speed chase, which ended in his own death when the police thought he reached for
a gun and shot him. He died over the seat-belt law.

This is not to blame the police. They didn't know why he had a warrant out for his
arrest. They also say they believed their lives were in danger at the conclusion of
the chase.

This also isn't designed to make a hero out of the young man. I sincerely doubt that
he was a conscientious objector to the nanny state. More likely, he just didn't like
seat belts and couldn't afford to pay the tickets. When his unpaid tickets rose to
warrant status and the police spotted him, he panicked. In the end, however, he died
because someone thought it was a good idea to force people to wear seat belts. Was it
worth it?

No matter how innocuous or well-intentioned a law, it has to be enforced with the
full force of the police powers. If it isn't, then the law is useless. When rules
aren't enforced, that breeds contempt for the law itself.

According to George Washington, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is
force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." No matter how
high-minded a law sounds, its only power comes from the business end of a gun.

The next time something annoys you and you want it stopped, or you come up with a
good idea to improve everybody's life and you want to make sure everybody has to do
it, you need to stop yourself and ask this question: "Am I really willing to shoot
someone for this?"

* * * * *

Ray Haynes represents the 36th Senate District in California.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] This piece was originally published in the Orange County
Register.

"The state, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, is by necessity a
hegemonic bond. If government were in a position to expand its power ad libitum, it
could abolish the market economy and substitute for it all-round totalitarian
socialism. In order to prevent this, it is necessary to curb the power of government.
This is the task of all constitutions, bills of rights, and laws. This is the meaning
of all struggles which men have fought for liberty." Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Join the Mises Institute

Home | About | Email List | Search | Contact Us | Periodicals | Articles
Coming Events | News | Resources | Catalog | Shopping Basket | Contributions
� 2001 Mises.org


------- End of forwarded message -------

T' A<>E<>R
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational
tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the
State among its hapless subjects.  His task is to demonstrate
repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the
"democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist
by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse
of objective necessity.  He strives to show that the existence of
taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between
the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled.  He seeks to show that
the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State
has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to
accept State rule and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a
share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded
subjects.
[[For a New Liberty:  The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard,
Fox & Wilkes, 1973, 1978, p. 25]]

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to