I wrote this as a response to this recent opinion piece from the New York Times. It's an argument where a lot of the sides are at least partially wrong.
The police are rejecting calls for greater checks on their power. These checks are necessary, especially in light of the increased corruption coming to light. They are right to be horrified at the senseless murder of their own, but shouldn't use it as an excuse not to self-reflect which is what this is turning into.
Blasio wants reform but he's doing it wrong. None of his proposals deal with the increased militarization of the police. He also supports the system of pointless victimless crimes responsible for Eric Garner's death, so his defenders are wrong when they say he's part in the solution. Blasio continues to maintain and grow the regulations that caused Garner's death.
The protesters are aware that police power is out of control, but they blame it on the wrong cause. It's an institutional issue, yes, but one driven by a view of authoritarianism that treats people as wild animals who must be corralled. Racism is only one aspect - it's actually a hatred of free will itself that's to blame. The only solution is less control, less central authority. Instead, many call for more bureaucracy in the name of "protection" - which only magnifies the problem.
I find the behavior of police here to be a fascinating social experiment on a grand scale. With victimless crimes no longer enforced, there is no descent into madness, only an improvement in quality of life for citizens of all backgrounds. Proof that what we need for equality and the pursuit of happiness are not more laws, but more liberty.
No comments:
Post a Comment