LF: What it Means to be a Law Enforcer . . .

It is no accident that police have become more brutal – in appearance as well as action – since they became law enforcement.

The term itself is a brutal syllogism. The law exists and must be enforced because it is the law. I am just doing my job, only following (lawful) orders. People were hanged for using such reasoning to justify the enforcement of vicious, evil laws and went to the gallows baffled as to why.

Victor’s justice, they called it. And perhaps they were right, if a bit prematurely.

Today’s defendants – well, one hopes that they will be that, one day – are just as guilty in kind if not degree.

They enforce the laws. All of them. They do not question the rightness of any of them. The law is the law.

It ought to raise hairs on the back of any thinking person’s neck.

Law enforcement countenances anything, provided the law says so. It is what has made it possible for law enforcers to seize people’s property without charge or due process of any sort – because the law (civil asset forfeiture) gives them the power to do it. Some do it perfunctorily – the banality of evil Hannah Arendt wrote about. Others do it zealously – this includes the rabid little man who is the chief law enforcement officer of the state, Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

It is what enables “good Americans” (the same as “good Germans”) to stand in the middle of the road, halting every car at gunpoint (implied, even if not actually drawn; see what happens if you do not stop) and demanding “papers” be presented.

Without feeling ashamed of themselves.

Because the law says it is “reasonable” to do this. (If so, then it is not-rape to briefly penetrate an unwilling victim – which action by the way law enforcers also perform under color of the law but call it “looking for contraband” rather than rape.)

These same law enforcers will just as nihilistically enforce worse laws not yet passed but ominously threatened, such as laws forbidding the possession of “assault” weapons – or weapons, period.

Such laws in fact are already in force in several states (e.g., Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey) and have in fact already been enforced. People have been caged as if they were violent criminals not for any violent or criminal action on their part but only because they had the misfortune to fall into the hands of violent criminals who happen to operate under the color of the law.

This includes innocent victims who abided by the concealed weapons laws applicable in their home state, who were driving through another state with different laws and were pulled over for some other non-crime such as “speeding” or “not buckling up for saaaaaaafety” by violent criminals acting under color of law, and foolishly told the violent criminals they were confronted with that they were carrying a legal (in their state) firearm in the trunk . . . and very quickly found themselves first in cuffs and then in jail.

Does anyone doubt these same law enforcers will hesitate when it comes to enforcing laws even more despicable?

How about house-by-house confiscation? Do you doubt it? If yes, you should perhaps reconsider. They will, after all, simply be enforcing the law and just doing their job. The same moral indifference which enables them to do the things to people they currently do to people will make it just as easy – as indifferent – to do more to them.

So long as it is the law.

How about the enforcement of the loathsome “shared responsibility” payment – i.e., the federal tax penalty imposed on people for failing to abide by terms of Obamacare, who did not send the insurance mafia thousands of dollars for “coverage” they may not desire or need or be able to afford?

It is, after all, the law.

At the moment, the enforcement of this particular law is held in abeyance because the federal law enforcers lack the power to enforce it; they can only send threatening letters – and add interest charges to the principal “owed,” which remains exactly that, as far as the federal law enforcers are concerned.

They are biding their time.

The day will probably come when they acquire the power to enforce that law. They will seize money held in bank accounts, or garnish wages – or place lies on property; possibly even seizing it to pay he “debt” supposedly “owed” but which is nothing more than theft and extortion called by other things to powder over their moral loathsomeness.

Why would they not do so?

They already do exactly the same things to people who have not submitted to other forms of extortion under color of the law. The obvious example being the annual extortion “homeowners” supposedly “owe” on homes long ago paid-for, or so they thought. In fact, they are never paid-for and so never owned, on account of forever “owing” whatever monies those passing laws decree – to be collected by force by law enforcers, if the duress of the threat of force is insufficient inducement.

So, the first thing that needs to change – if there is to be change in the right direction – is the terminology.

Law enforcement as a concept must be disposed of in the same manner one disposes of other toxic things. The idea that one can “reform” such a concept is tantamount to rattlesnake training or trying to mow grass with scissors.

Dingbatism, as a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, must be dismissed and disposed of as any other wacko ism or toxic belief system or philosophy.