Gyroscopic Investing

I wanted to pick the brains on some of the folks here on the multitude of laws we have and how they are selectively enforced.  I used to see the latter as mitigating the former.  "Yeah, we have a lot of laws, but usually you can get away without harsh enforcement of them."

I'm starting to reeeeally rethink this.  Here's why:

1) It gives cops a constant bargaining chip with which they can make your life miserable.  This means society is inclined to behave very differently.  "Well, I was going 33 in a 30.  Technically he could give me a ticket." (cue pandering to everything the cop wants you to do).

This effectively limits a whole host of our Constitutional rights, as we give them up in hopes that the cops will let us off the $80 ticket for going 3 over the limit.

2) It induces complacency by the population against bad laws.  "Oh it won't really affect me."

3) It creates a very manipulative police force.  Similar to #1, but it's more about the systemic power abuses that can arise than an individual inconvenience.

4) It allows for a multitude of areas where "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" can be used to paper over overtly illegal searches and violations of the 4th Amendment.  "Swerving!"  "Tinted windows!"  "Didn't appear to have a seatbelt on!"  "Smelled like marijuana."  The list goes on.



So while I often used to look at selective enforcement as a good thing ("Otherwise I'd get a ticket for going 31 in a 30!") I'm starting to look at it as an excuse for bad laws, bad police work, effectively giving up my rights, etc.  If laws can't be enforced to a T without public outcry, we SHOULDN'T have those laws.  I'd almost rather have the police enforce things strictly, and have the corresponding public pressure applied to eliminate bad laws, than allow all the sloppiness and inconvenience. 

So the next time a cop "lets you off" because you were polite to him, perhaps that should be looked at a lot differently... him leveraging selective enforcement to get you to give up your Constitutional rights (1st, 4th, 5th Amendments).  In a vacuum, sure it'll be easy to appreciate some leniency, but I don't think we're seeing the full picture here.  It seems to me that in these cases, a violation of the 14th Amendment is being used to get people to willingly give up the others.  I think that bargaining chip has to be taken away, even if it means in the short term that cops get in trouble for not consistently enforcing bad laws. 

Perhaps I'm not thinking about this correctly... anybody have thoughts?  Obviously a better way would be to simply get rid of bad laws.  But I don't think you'll see the public support that until they start getting enforced consistently, and I think a judge could enforce that under the 14th Amendment (equal protection), could they not?

Welcome to the dark side, Moda.

Laws that are selectively enforced and lack near-universal support erode respect for the very concept of the rule of law. This is the inherent problem with diversity in a society ruled by laws, as well as the notion that laws can or should drive social change.

A closely related issue is that of plea bargaining.  DAs bring up dozens of charges, all for a single event, adding up to four lifetimes in jail, and then say they'll let you off easy if you plead guilty.  What a crock!

My wife read me an article recently about a woman who left her 10-year-old in the car with the AC running for five minutes while she went into a store.  This was against the letter of a (very stupid) law, and CPS was all over her.  She would have fought it, but she could have lost her kids, so she pled guilty, did some community service, and now has this on her record forever.

Pointedstick wrote: Welcome to the dark side, Moda.

Laws that are selectively enforced and lack near-universal support erode respect for the very concept of the rule of law. This is the inherent problem with diversity in a society ruled by laws, as well as the notion that laws can or should drive social change.

Well a lot of times laws at one level of government to drive social change counter-act selective enforcement or selective protection by lower levels of government.

It's when these laws try to affect individual behavior, rather than that of a municipality, that I have a problem.  Otherwise, I'm becoming more and more skeptical of the cronyism within local governments.  I've actually heard some interesting arguments that Madison was extremely concerned with local/state cronyism and allowing those areas, un-burdened by the same limitations that the feds put on themselves with the constitution, could easily cause big problems.

But I don't want to make this about federalism, per se.  More-so about what our attitude (and the attitude of our judicial an executive branches) should be on enforcement.

This same concept really has led me to becoming a fan of declaring war to be able to use war-like secrecy and powers.  Lay the cards out on the table and use them accordingly, but then stop when you're not in that mode.  It's this perpetual perma-quasi-war $hit that basically turns our executive branch of federal government into this entity that can just do whatever it wants as long as it can use buzz-words like "terrorism" (or, as it used to be, Communism).  Or it simply doesn't have to use those words, because we don't even know what it is doing.  I never used to get hung up on that formality, as "war sucks no matter who declared it or didn't declare it," but I see these checks and balances with a lot more favor today than I ever used to, even back when I was learning how/why they worked.  Not sure why I never listened to those lessons more when I was a youngster.

Not enough respect for the universal ugliness of human nature in power, I'd suspect.

Xan wrote: A closely related issue is that of plea bargaining.  DAs bring up dozens of charges, all for a single event, adding up to four lifetimes in jail, and then say they'll let you off easy if you plead guilty.  What a crock!

My wife read me an article recently about a woman who left her 10-year-old in the car with the AC running for five minutes while she went into a store.  This was against the letter of a (very stupid) law, and CPS was all over her.  She would have fought it, but she could have lost her kids, so she pled guilty, did some community service, and now has this on her record forever.

Yes... I thought of that, too.  It seems to me that DA's have so much leniency with which to either make your life miserable, or leverage that fact to get you to plead guilty to something, showing "they're doing their job."  I'm also extremely weary of how close their relationship to the police is.  Judges aren't a whole lot better, especially where people elect judges, and they're just arms of mob rule.

Gosh... we need an anarchist-statist-pragmatist unity party now more than ever.

Did you guys see this video from another thread?  Where the guy got shot for getting his wallet, and afterward very politely yet inquisitively asked why the police officer shot him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXmVPxQGTsE

This was for not wearing a seatbelt.  Let's not forget the other side of all this... that very interaction between an armed LEO and a citizen is naturally heightened, and you're going to get confusion in X% of all cases that results in violence just because tensions are so damn high.  If suddenly suburban soccer moms and rich dudes are getting pulled over and dealt with aggressively for tiny violations like not having their seatbelt on, I think you'd start to see a lot more frustration with bad laws.  Unfortunately, when cops think they're going to make a drug bust so they use BS selective enforcement techniques, society doesn't get quite as up-in-arms about it.

I just don't know if this is a valid 14th Amendment violation or not.  Seems like "selective enforcement" and a lot of these plea deals represent just that.  How can you have equal protection if you don't consistently enforce laws?

Not to mention that a lot of innocent folks probably go to jail as a result of plea deals (my guess).  You're motivating low-level criminals to put someone else up on a silver platter, whether it is true or not.  Seems fishy.

I think we owe it to ourselves to either have "peace officers" (another idea that I used to HATE the idea of) where there is no heightened tension because you're talking to the government equivalent of a life guard at a public pool, or to simply get away from letting all these ridiculous laws stay on the books if they're going to be enforced by officers ready to Fire, Ready, Aim at the first action that might put them at risk, which is omnipresent.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power." -- George Orwell, 1984

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.  Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?  What's there in that for anyone?  But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Stewardship wrote: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power." -- George Orwell, 1984

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.  Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?  What's there in that for anyone?  But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

+1 billion.

Stewardship wrote: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power." -- George Orwell, 1984

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.  Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?  What's there in that for anyone?  But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

It appears the Bible is correct when it comes to homosexuality - at least if one cares for his neighbor's well being.

Should we return to 1961?  Old study but might be representative of today's statistics.  In my opinion, a disgusting subject that is rarely discussed, but is one the "masses" should be aware of.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html

... M

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Stewardship wrote: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power." -- George Orwell, 1984

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.  Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?  What's there in that for anyone?  But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

It appears the Bible is correct when it comes to homosexuality - at least if one cares for his neighbor's well being.

Should we return to 1961?  Old study but might be representative of today's statistics.  In my opinion, a disgusting subject that is rarely discussed, but is one the "masses" should be aware of.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron2.html

... M

I'm a bit puzzled as to what the link is with the thread subject.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yeah,  I debated on where to put it.  It, maybe weirdly, seemed to me there was a connection with the George Orwell quote and how our secular culture and government has endorsed, and even celebrates, things that were once viewed as wrong.  Ditto the Ayn Rand quote on how our government has gone from homosexuality being a capital offense to something that shall not be descriminated against.  Maybe it was just me. 

... M

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I'm a bit puzzled as to what the link is with the thread subject.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yeah,  I debated on where to put it.  It, maybe weirdly, seemed to me there was a connection with the George Orwell quote and how our secular culture and government has endorsed, and even celebrates, things that were once viewed as wrong.  Ditto the Ayn Rand quote on how our government has gone from homosexuality being a capital offense to something that shall not be descriminated against.  Maybe it was just me. 

... M

Are saying you wish there were laws against homosexuality?

That seems to me to be counter to the spirit of the opening post.

I'm saying I saw connections with Orwell, Rand and the link I provided.  I'm saying the purpose of government is to provide order and reduce chaos.  Does celebrating and promoting acts that result in unnecessary pain and suffering do that?  I think not.  I'm also saying some of those Biblical rules had practical reasons for their being rules, regardless of where one stands on religion.  I guess I'm also looking at history and seeing that great civilizations that promote homosexuality do not last too long after homosexuality becomes widely accepted.  I doubt the PP will be more effective in saving us than Uncle Sugar and a myriad of laws that are not or cannot be enforced.  But, "it is all good" in the long run. 

... M

I'm afraid I seem to have missed the connection between legal homosexuality and "unnecessary pain and suffering" or civilizational collapse.

Pointedstick wrote: I'm afraid I seem to have missed the connection between legal homosexuality and "unnecessary pain and suffering" or civilizational collapse.

Does hog pain count?    See this short blurb from a former hog farmer, then draw your own conclusions about unnecessary pain and suffering (excerpted from ALPB forum thread).  I see a connection, perhaps others do not. 

Re. civilizational collapse - http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_change.html

... M

Quote from: SomeoneWrites on Today at 01:05:18 AM
Quote from: Team Hesse on Yesterday at 02:12:02 PM
Actually had a short discussion around this last week at a gathering of Pastors in Alexandria, Minn. One comment that resonated with me was that it was unfortunate the voice of the psychiatric community has basically drowned out the voice of the rest of the medical world. There are very good reasons why same-sex intimacy is problematic from a human health aspect that are rarely mentioned in any of these discussions.
Lou

Could you elaborate?


See post 125 above by J Thomas Shelley and the link there.
The change in the DSM IV that occurred in the early 70's is assumed to be the definitive voice from the medical community when in reality there are problems from the aspects of anatomy, physiology, and disease control which have not been heard. I remember Animal Science PHD profs who made it very clear that the rectal/anal region was an anatomically weak spot in both porcine and human species--easily damaged and prone to life threatening infection when damaged. In my own 45 year experience as a hog farmer I dealt with over 2000 rectal prolapses in hogs. These invariably needed to be harvested or euthanized before the animal went septic. I was very rarely able to save any of these unfortunate creatures. It was without a doubt one of the most unpleasant aspects of my time as a pork producer.
Lou

I fail to see how it is any business of the state if people want to have forms of sex that put them personally at elevated risk of health problems. Besides, lots of heterosexual people have oral and anal sex, too. Is it really the duty of the state to police people's bedroom habits?

Pointedstick wrote: I fail to see how it is any business of the state if people want to have forms of sex that put them personally at elevated risk of health problems. Besides, lots of heterosexual people have oral and anal sex, too. Is it really the duty of the state to police people's bedroom habits?

As I said in my earlier post:

I doubt the PP will be more effective in saving us than Uncle Sugar and a myriad of laws that are not or cannot be enforced.  But, "it is all good" in the long run. 

Where are you getting the idea that I want the state to police people's bedroom habits?  I am merely pointing out that our current USA culture (civilization) is rapidly going down a road from which there is likely no earthly method of long term recovery.  Correction needs to come from within each of us voluntarily (I'm not even going to bring in where the guide for right living comes from, but I will say our society is doing its best to throw him out  ), not be forced upon us from the outside, especially via government edicts.  I believe that is the same issue Ayn Rand and George Orwell were dealing with, albeit from a secular viewpoint.  I'm looking at the original post by moda and subsequent comments from a big picture perspective - I see connections.  If you don't, so be it.  I'm really not trying to argue with you.

... M

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I fail to see how it is any business of the state if people want to have forms of sex that put them personally at elevated risk of health problems. Besides, lots of heterosexual people have oral and anal sex, too. Is it really the duty of the state to police people's bedroom habits?

As I said in my earlier post:

I doubt the PP will be more effective in saving us than Uncle Sugar and a myriad of laws that are not or cannot be enforced.  But, "it is all good" in the long run. 

Where are you getting the idea that I want the state to police people's bedroom habits?

From this:

Mountaineer wrote:I'm saying the purpose of government is to provide order and reduce chaos.  Does celebrating and promoting acts that result in unnecessary pain and suffering do that?  I think not.  I'm also saying some of those Biblical rules had practical reasons for their being rules, regardless of where one stands on religion.  I guess I'm also looking at history and seeing that great civilizations that promote homosexuality do not last too long after homosexuality becomes widely accepted.

Orwell and Rand were arguing that government destroys the moral fabric of society by criminalizing virtually everything and then enforcing the laws in a capricious and politicized manner. You appear to have been suggesting that government can preserve a society's moral fabric by promoting "common sense" religious rules that have what you believe to be a sound basis in practical advice.

I don't see very many points of commonality between those viewpoints at all.

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I fail to see how it is any business of the state if people want to have forms of sex that put them personally at elevated risk of health problems. Besides, lots of heterosexual people have oral and anal sex, too. Is it really the duty of the state to police people's bedroom habits?

As I said in my earlier post:

I doubt the PP will be more effective in saving us than Uncle Sugar and a myriad of laws that are not or cannot be enforced.  But, "it is all good" in the long run. 

Where are you getting the idea that I want the state to police people's bedroom habits?

From this:

Mountaineer wrote:I'm saying the purpose of government is to provide order and reduce chaos.  Does celebrating and promoting acts that result in unnecessary pain and suffering do that?  I think not.  I'm also saying some of those Biblical rules had practical reasons for their being rules, regardless of where one stands on religion.  I guess I'm also looking at history and seeing that great civilizations that promote homosexuality do not last too long after homosexuality becomes widely accepted.

Orwell and Rand were arguing that government destroys the moral fabric of society by criminalizing virtually everything and then enforcing the laws in a capricious and politicized manner. You appear to have been suggesting that government can preserve a society's moral fabric by promoting "common sense" religious rules that have what you believe to be a sound basis in practical advice.

I don't see very many points of commonality between those viewpoints at all.

PS,

Lutherans are very good at accepting paradoxical positions; and maybe even in seeing connections others do not see.  A couple of examples:  I am simultaneously a saint and a sinner.  We live in the now and not yet.  The Scriptures teach Law and Gospel - both are God's inerrant Word and do not oppose each other.  Jesus' death enabled life.  Satan has been defeated but still prowls the earth.  Suffering is good.  God is a God of justice and a God of mercy.  God loves everyone and wants them to be saved; some are not.  God is all powerful but allows evil to exist.  Government is to provide order and reduce chaos, government frequently enables chaos.  Corrupt government leaders serve at God's will.  Reason is a wonderful gift from God; we use it for evil purposes.  Bottom line - some of these statements you may agree with and or understand, others not so much.  I maintain I see the connections as I've stated previously; you may not.  You see the previous posts one way, I see them another.  That is OK with me, only you (and God) can change you, not me, and only God (and me) can change me.  What are you trying to accomplish?  I think I may be missing your point.

... M

Pointedstick wrote: I fail to see how it is any business of the state if people want to have forms of sex that put them personally at elevated risk of health problems. Besides, lots of heterosexual people have oral and anal sex, too. Is it really the duty of the state to police people's bedroom habits?

But the Bible says!...