CopsSocialistLaws

COPS AND SOCIALIST LAWS
Useless-Knowledge.com June, 2004
Copyright Steve Pomper, 2004

When does government cross the line from necessary function to unnecessary intrusion? I not only ask myself
this question from the perspective of an ordinary citizen; I ask it from the perspective of a police officer.
I am sworn to uphold and enforce the laws that the People pass through their elected representatives.
However, I have discretion in how I apply that enforcement, which I endeavor to do equitably.
What about socialist laws? In what position does that place the police officer who respects the design of
Founders in placing individual liberty above all other ideals? A government of men does not grant to us
liberty; the Creator grants us this gift. Those who would infringe on our individual liberties do so with contempt
for the Creator.
I am not approaching this from a religious perspective. Substitute an alternative Genesis, divine or otherwise;
my point is that liberty is inherent at birth.
A socialist law exists to support a political agenda, and not legitimate public safety. Laws that fit this definition
are seatbelt mandates, helmet laws, and smoking prohibitions in private businesses.
The problem with these laws is that the government presumes to know best how every individual should
protect himself while engaged in certain otherwise lawful activities. The formula: Socialist programs and
institutions such as welfare and Medicare create a, "public burden," out of a void.
The government then transfers wealth from the productive to the unproductive, and adds insult to injury
usurping individual rights in the name of, "watch-dogging," public funds.
As a police officer committed to individual liberty, I find that an increasingly socialistic government expects me
to baby-sit my fellow adults. You need not put anyone in danger to incur my wrath; you need only exercise
your inherent freedom to choose how to protect your own body to suffer legal sanctions.
There is a danger here, which is insidious. These laws stem from what the proponents feel are common sense
positions, or are, "good ideas." It's a good idea to wear a seatbelt on most occasions. It may be a good idea
to wear a helmet. It's certainly a good idea to not smoke cigarettes.
The socialists among us secure unwitting allies because most people already wear seat belts, think that
wearing a helmet is a good thing, and feel that smoking is bad. But does a good idea automatically translate
into good law? Hell no!
Just consider all of the behaviors that might be mandated, or prohibited based upon the premise that, it's a
good idea. It's a good idea to wear a raincoat in foul weather. It's a good idea to avoid eating fat saturated
foods. Each of these behaviors could affect an individual's health, and therefore be regulated in the interest of
the, "public burden."
Far-fetched you say. Why? There was a time when most Americans considered seatbelt and helmet laws
far-fetched. Banning smoking in an individual's private restaurant? In America,never.
Tell me how the premise which brought us these socialist laws couldn't, or wouldn't be used to mandate, or
prohibit all sorts of currently legal behaviors out of concern for the, "public burden."
As a cop, I am the one who the government will try to use to enforce these laws. Most officers I know tend to
be politically conservative to libertarian. Though there are those few petty tyrants who enjoy their roles as tax
collectors for their respective jurisdictions, most officers who willingly enforce such laws are well meaning, but
are buying into a policy that dictates that preserving life at any price is more important than preserving liberty.
They have their priorities backward.
As an example, consider the recent comment by the Washington State Patrol, a law enforcement agency with a
solid reputation, but a worrisome parental agenda. The Patrol credits Washington State's lower traffic fatality
rate to it's, "Click it, or Ticket," seatbelt law emphasis campaign.
This may indeed be true, but at what price? A headline which reads: Seatbelt Law Credited with Decline in
Traffic Fatalities, could also read: Seatbelt Law Blamed for Decline in Individual Liberty.
Patrick Henry said famously, "Give me liberty, or give me death." He correctly placed liberty above life, for
life has little value without it. Sometimes people think of liberty only in terms of the biggies: freedom of
speech, religion, the right to bear arms, etc. However, liberty often comes down to the little things such as
when the government reaches into your car, motorcycle, bicycle, or restaurant.
These are issues of choice. Choice is synonymous with liberty. The Creator endowed us with the right to
conduct our peaceful daily affairs free from interference. The Founders created a government whose primary
duty is to preserve that which the Creator bestowed: individual liberty.
Can man take from man what the Creator has given? Obviously he can, but only at his own moral peril. A
truly free society conceived in liberty cannot exist without the security of a legitimate police force.
However, when governments corrupt police legitimacy by establishing laws and policies that promote a
socialist agenda, law enforcers are prevented from carrying out their primary mission to protect liberty, and
are encouraged, or even ordered to restrict it.
For those who consider themselves liberty-loving patriots, but are willing to make certain compromises
depending on circumstances, I'd offer this admonishment: One cannot stand in defense of liberty, while one
supports or tolerates socialist law.

STEVE POMPER

AUTHOR

BUY THIS BOOK