The Lowe Down



<< Previous entry: FPL's obscene profits

>> Next entry: Death, taxes and Wall Street bonuses

The Hollywood cops fabrication


tales.gif

As I’ve said before, it sometimes helps to understand human behavior from a tribal perspective.

When the human animal finds himself in uncertain or stressful situations, his default behavior is to seek refuge with his own kind. The tribe can be an ethnic group, a college fraternity, one’s religious denomination, or even a profession (like law enforcement).

It’s “us” vs. “them,” a mindset reinforced by initiation rituals as well as mandatory loyalty to the group.

Our constitution is a framework of codes designed to protect society from this all-too-natural tendency, especially when it exhibits itself in the institutions of government.

We are a nation of laws, not of men, and the idea of fairness and equality under those laws is the animating ideal that binds us together. It’s why the president swears his fealty to the constitution, and not to the people of the United States.

It is an ideal—not a reality—because men are not perfect. But it is why we feel such a deep sense of wrong when abuses like the recent Hollywood police fabrication occur. The deliberate flouting of our common code is not just an offense to the motorist who was hit by the policeman, but to everyone.

The authority those law enforcement officers wield is conferred by the rest of us. They threw it in our faces in the name of protecting one of their own.

Categories: Local South Florida Issues (187)
submit to reddit
add to delicious


Comments

All cops are scumbags. I am not surprised.


Our constitution is a framework of codes designed to protect society from this all-too-natural tendency, especially when it exhibits itself in the institutions of government.

The constitution was supposedly designed to protect us from our government. As such, it is a complete failure. Actually, the constitution was designed to eliminate the Articles of Confederation, under which we really were free.

All those laws which make it a different (and more severe) crime to assault, resist, injure a police officer should be eliminated. By making police officers into a special class of citizen they are beginning to act that way.

We should reduce the size of our police departments. We should reduce their armaments. SWAT teams are certainly not cost effective for protecting people. They work very well to intimidate. I am much more fearful of being harmed by the police than by criminals.


That´s why rich people have their own police; so that they don´t need to call the 'real' police.

What happens if someone would call the cops to arrest the president of the US on suspicion of a crime e g starting a war or some act of terrorism using the military? Nothing! Proof: GW Bush should be in jail for one thing.


That´s why rich people have their own police; so that they don´t need to call the 'real' police.

What happens if someone would call the cops to arrest the president of the US on suspicion of a crime e g starting a war or some act of terrorism using the military? Nothing! Proof: GW Bush should be in jail for one thing.


Stuff like this happens all the time ,these jerkoffs just got caught. You got swat teams that kick in doors at 4 am corner some poor guy in a closet then one of these a- holes gets nervous and kills the guy and they say it was justified. The guy did have a little bit of weed tho so its OK right !


Well said about the human nature thing, us vs. them. It's so true.

"Actually, the constitution was designed to eliminate the Articles of Confederation, under which we really were free." Wait, really? Because from what i've heard, the articles allowed the government to raise taxes, but not collect them, make laws, but not enforce them, declare war, but not raise an army, and borrow money from other countries, but not collect the funds to pay the loans back. Oh yeah, and the total lack of a president or leader either is kind of a minute detail not worth mentioning... but it sounds really free. Completely optional and voluntary participation in the government; voluntary taxes, voluntary compliance, voluntary honesty...


Because from what i've heard, the articles allowed the government to raise taxes, but not collect them, make laws, but not enforce them, declare war, but not raise an army, and borrow money from other countries, but not collect the funds to pay the loans back.

That sounds reasonably accurate. The Articles of Confederation was an agreement between independent States, sort of like NATO or the UN.

While the individual States could collect taxes, there was no central government to steal our money. Freedom means respect for private property. If one State did not respect its citizens private property it was fairly easy to move to another State.

Since the Articles of Confederation was an agreement between States, it really would not be appropriate for that confederation to make laws affecting citizens of the States; just as it would be inappropriate for US citizens to be forced to obey UN mandates or pay taxes to the UN or any other international organization.

Not being able to borrow money or raise an army is a blessing. Many millions of people would not have perished in wars of the past couple of centuries if governments did not have this terrible power. Certainly, the States had the ability to raise armies if needed for defense.

Oh yeah, and the total lack of a president or leader either is kind of a minute detail not worth mentioning... but it sounds really free.

You make it sound like the total lack of a president is a negative. We would be much better off if Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama had never seen the White House. Have you noticed that every president seems to be worse than the one before?

It is really free; free from government oppression. Freedom and protection of private property are should be our main goals if we want to live in a peaceful and prosperous community.

Completely optional and voluntary participation in the government; voluntary taxes, voluntary compliance, voluntary honesty...

Of course voluntary participation in government is impossible since government, by definition, represents total power. The only route to freedom is to weaken and eliminate government as much as possible.

Voluntary honesty is another question. I am not saying there should not be rules or enforcement. I am saying the government is, by definition, always corrupt. Voluntary associations between people will do a much better job of making and enforcing rules.


I guess we have a fundamental difference in belief here-- you find regulation or concentrated power in almost all forms to be negative. To me, that almost sounds like anarchy, no government at all, and is not my idea of freedom. I find protection and stability in regulation and concentrated, but checked power.

"Freedom and protection of private property are should be our main goals if we want to live in a peaceful and prosperous community"
How do you protect private property if there's no concentrated power to do so? Can't raise an army, or borrow money or collect taxes to pay for one, no president/leader to enforce any laws concerning protection...I hardly call that a blessing.

Under the articles, the states were pretty much financially independent (different money, different laws about trade, interstate and foreign) and were operating more like (as you said) a collection of countries. So fine, why not divide everything down even further? To the county level? Maybe to city? Or household? Or person-to-person? The point is to be one single, unified country, that can protect and defend its people's lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; not to be a bunch of helpless states. This is what I see as freedom. The United States IS (singular) not the United states ARE (plural). We have to be unified, and we have to be strong, so that freedom and protection of property can be realistic goals in a peaceful and prosperous community.

I have noticed that our recent presidents haven't seemed so great, but that doesn't make the concept of the presidency a bad one. But the bottom line is we need a commander in cheif to act in case of an emergency. And whether you liked it or not, the recent presidents have acted in emergencies. Something that would have been impossible under the articles.

The articles of Confederation was an agreement among states; the constitution is an agreement among we, the people. With its checks and balances, bicameral legislature, central figure and central power, and federal and state court systems, I believe that the Constitution grants freedom, stability, safety and the ability to pursue happiness. The Articles did what they had to do-- got the american people through a difficult time when they were afraid of monarchy. But relative to today, I trust the system set up by the Constitution. Whether or not the poeple in it are honest and well-intended is another question.


Hi Maria,

Our differences are not so great. I believe government poses a greater threat to our security than criminals and foreign entities. Murry Rothbard called government a predatory gang of criminals.

As far as security is concerned: see Hans Hoppe's Myth of National Defense. It is available as free online pdf (Google for URL). Finally, anarchy is not a dirty word.


I don't think anarchy is a dirty word, but I just can't see how having no government at all leads to freedom and protection of private property. But that stems from my belief that government isn't innately a gang of criminals. If that's what you believe government is, then I understand why you would want little to no government. I just disagree.


PS-- I will look up the Hoppe book.


Leave a Reply

COMMENT BOARD GUIDELINES:

You share in the SunSentinel.com community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.


Post a comment


(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Advertisement
About the author
Chan LoweCHAN LOWE has been the Sun Sentinel’s first and only editorial cartoonist for the past twenty-six years. Before that, he worked as cartoonist and writer for the Oklahoma City Times and the Shawnee (OK) News-Star.

Chan went to school in New York City, Los Angeles, and the U.K., and graduated from Williams College in 1975 with a degree in Art History. He also spent a year at Stanford University as a John S. Knight Journalism Fellow.

His work has won numerous awards, including the Green Eyeshade Award and the National Press Foundation Berryman Award. He has also been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His cartoons have won multiple first-place awards in all of the Florida state journalism contests, and The Lowe-Down blog, which he began in 2008, has won writing awards from the Florida Press Club and the Society of Professional Journalists.
Connect with me


Search this blog
Get text alerts on your phone


Send me the following alerts:

STORM - Weather Alerts
NEWS - Breaking News Alerts
LOTTO - Lottery Numbers
SPORTS - Breaking Sports News
BIZ - Business news headlines
ENT - Entertainment news headlines
DEALS - Free offers and money saving deals


You can also sign up for by texting any of the above keywords to 23539. Standard messaging and data rates apply.
E-mail newsletters
Get the news that matters to you delivered to your inbox. Breaking news, hurricane alerts, news from your neighborhood, and more. Click here to sign up for our newsletters. It is fast, easy and free!