Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice writes this morning of the blanket of laws we have covering just about every facet of our existence in this country. My parents seem to be a recurrent theme these days, so let’s go for another one about dad.
My pop brought us to the U.S. in search of the American dream and good beer. Yet, he snickers when people say “this is a free country.” He reminds me of the fact that if I am in eastbejesus Idaho at midnight and there is not a soul in sight and a stop sign on the corner, I will stop and look both ways before I go forth on my journey. Why, he asks? Is it because we respect the law? Because we, as opposed to the uncivilized wretches in other countries where no one waits in line for the bus, are first world, first class and have an inherent and innate love of order? No, he says. It’s because we are afraid. There could be a cop around that corner, behind the bush. Maybe, now, there is a camera tracking that road. To think its a love for the order the laws bring is just silliness.
Years ago, we had a party at my house upstate. Everyone was having a good time, the Islamically forbidden liquids were flowing freely, and my dad went to take a leak on my front lawn. “Don’t do that!” I yelled. He said “why?” I said, “if someone sees you, you could get in trouble! Do it in the back or for God’s sake, do it inside!” He said “what kind of free country is this where you can’t even take a piss on your own front lawn?!”
I posted an interview that was shown on Afghan T.V. In the interview, I extol the virtues of the American Justice System. I ain’t lying when I talk about the rights, privileges and freedoms we have here and how great it is. Because it is. They don’t have any of that in Afghanistan and, despite the fact that there are thousands of NGO’s doing ‘Rule of Law’, they are no closer to having a right to counsel, or a right to have a complaint filed in civil court without bribing the lowly clerk sitting in the front room. We are better because we have a Bill of Rights, because we have people who are willing to stand between the accused and the government, who will go to the mat when someone gets hurt or goes back on their word.
So, why are we willing to give all of that up? Why do we want to be more like Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea? Why are we contracting our liberties when we should be expanding them? Don’t we want to aim higher than that?
I wonder at what point we will stop and say enough already. Sheesh. I think I can figure some stuff out myself and don’t need the powers that be legislating my every single move. I think Mr. Greenfield is correct, though, that unless those folks who say “never me” spend a few hours in a jail cell, things won’t get any better.
Does your father know you're writing about him trying to take a leak on the front lawn?
Frankly, that was my first question too.
No, he doesn't know. And its really to make a point. I mean, it is a shame that you can't take a piss on your own lawn, isn't it?
One person's pissing on a lawn is another person's indecent exposure.
That said, I have to admit that my one and only run-in with the law occurred in that same scenario when I was 16 years old. It explains my high school superlative: I was voted "Most Likely To Take a Leak."
“So, why are we willing to give all of that up? Why do we want to be more like Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea? Why are we contracting our liberties when we should be expanding them? Don’t we want to aim higher than that?”
Define “we.” Many do aim higher. They aim to implement smothering rules from which they, themselves are exempt. This is a double pleasure: dominating others (which also pays off supporters as a side benefit), and then the visceral thrill of being visibly and conspicuously beyond the untermenschen.
This is not all about the Clintons – it applies all the way down the chain, right down to the endless unaccountable public and private-sector minions of administrative “law”.
These tendencies are no longer under any control. I mean, the International Primate Protection League is now getting “f– yous” from US agencies when asking about stats for the illegal primate trade. The apparat don’t feel any need to answer to you, and they don’t care if you know it.
Now, throw in fast-declining societal trust, which removes much of the glue that once substituted for more overt methods of control.
In Germany, you can’t imagine pissing on your lawn, There are other cultures (including some in Europe) that are a different deal, not standard but who cares. Within their respective cultures, neither needs to control the phenomenon.
Absent that kind of cultural agreement, you get a much more rigid regime – and it will happen by popular demand, as friction spawns rules. If it doesn’t happen as deliberate policy first. Lee Kwan Yew knew and liked the British system – but he refused to implement it in Singapore’s high-control blueprint, and he was perfectly prepared to explain why not.
So, a state with a large lawless faction that’s closely connected to internal political interests and outside industries. Trust breaking down, and being deliberately sabotaged as part of a coherent political program that produces $$ and power for supporters. Throw in the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Stir.
“We” aren’t doing this. Very specific people and sectors are doing this. But many of the same people screaming about “why won’t ordinary Muslims deal with their jihadis” aren’t exactly putting their lives and careers on the line to roll back a growing tyranny at home.
I salute the exceptions on both sides of that divide. But both face an uphill fight.