Governmental Abuse in America

The U. S. government has been expanding its influence on the personal lives of American residents for many years, particularly during the twentieth century. This growth has disabled people's abilities to take care of themselves and their loved ones, and ruined their chances at personal growth and development. Once a vehicle solely for the preservation of a free and peaceful society, the U. S. government has distorted our country into a nightmare police state. The short-term beneficiaries of continued and expanded lawful encroachment are only the government officials themselves and the criminal underground who gain more power with every newly prohibited good in their black market economy. The primary cause of this governmental abuse is the collective will of the people. The vast majority of individuals refuse to allow other people to act in ways that are foreign to them. 

One set of laws that has destroyed many people's lives is the asset forfeiture system. These laws are in place as a consequence of the government's drug policy, where inflated profits can be made as the illegality of the product limits supply. 

"Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway." (Holstein) 

Another government practice that has caused many people considerable duress is racial profiling. The main reason this practice isn't condemned to the point of prosecuting enough officers to discourage its use is that the people who are hurt by it are not like them. The victims of these attacks are thought to be alien, somehow related to the actual criminal element and probably deserving anyway. When people think of themselves being negatively affected by a police procedure they take an interest in actually preventing these things from happening. 

"Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Rayford Means got lost three years ago, driving through Pennsylvania's Chester County. A policeman pulled over his car and asked why he was in the area. 'This officer displayed disbelief that I could be a judge,' said Means. The cop then followed Means for several miles and stopped him again. The stop lasted an hour, while the cop 'checked Means out.' The Philadelphia Tribune reported that the only possible 'grounds for suspicion' was simply that Means was a Black man driving though an all-white neighborhood." (Revolutionary) 

"Jonny Gammage, 31, was pulled over while driving his cousin's Jaguar at 2 a.m. on October 12, 1995, in the mainly white Pittsburgh suburb of Brentwood. Five cops arrived on the scene. Within minutes they had killed Jonny. He was beaten with a flashlight, a nightstick and a blackjack. One cop put his foot on Gammage's neck as he lay; face down on the pavement, handcuffed with his ankles bound. Cops claimed they stopped him because he was driving too slowly. He was unarmed." (Revolutionary) 

Public "indecency" laws, prohibitions on aesthetic modifications to private vehicles by their owners, ordinances barring businesses from selling certain items to adult consumers, and policies restricting people from "repetitively driving" are a few examples of government's oppressing people's pursuit of personal fulfillment. These laws and many more are created by a public attitude of intolerance. As long as they do not prevent someone personally from doing something that he would do, it is not seen as oppressive. Should the police lay down the law on a practice that the individual enjoys doing and suddenly his eyes are opened to the curtailment of one's personal freedom? 

Collectively, the expansion of government intrusion into people's personal lives is decreasing their trust and contentment with the current state of things. The most popular government acts will be supported by nature of them being popular even if they are at the expense of the ideological minority. People who never attend sporting events are forced to pay for sports facilities' construction and upkeep by taxes levied. Vegetarians are forced to subsidize meat manufacturers. Anti-abortion protesters must pay out of pocket for other people to have abortions against their most deeply held religious convictions. 

Some would argue that government intrusion into people's lives is beneficial. One line of reasoning is that certain prescribed values should be enforced to preserve an atmosphere of peace and order in our society. This way of thinking was particularly prominent during the 1950's. The base premise that supports this protocol is the idea that if everyone thinks and acts the same way, maximum efficiency can be achieved. There would not be any miscommunication or fighting; society would run like a well-oiled machine. 

While it is true that people who think and act alike are more productive and friendly to each other, this policy is both impractical and immoral. There will always be people who will not obey the law, whether they don't understand the supposed benefits derived or they don't accept the ideal that these authoritarians hold up. These people who would not concede their personal values to those prescribed by the state would have an advantage over those who would concede personal judgment to group harmony. 

During the Revolutionary War, the British "red coats" all fought the colonists in a static, traditional way. Walking shoulder to shoulder they would fire their rifles at their targets, recognizing this style as the only way to fight a war "honorably." The Americans realized that the only way that they could win the war was to attack the British using unconventional sneak attacks, which could minimize casualties and take out entire lines of red coats at once. Developing "guerrilla tactics," the colonists were able to fend off the British invaders, despite their overwhelming numbers, all because the British soldiers would not think "out of the box." 

In a similar way, people who would think and act in ways not condoned by the government where personal values are mandated would have advantages over those who would limit themselves to state sanctioned thoughts and actions. 

Other people might argue that some activities should be mandated/restricted, and other activities should be up to individual discretion. A likely justification for this angle is that some people do not have the intelligence or willpower to make the right choices for themselves, and must have government intervene on their own behalf. Is an entity that takes away your ability to make your own decisions freely acting on your behalf? 

All people have different values. Let's say two people would enjoy the experience of being a teacher more than the experience of being a computer programmer. One person decides to become a teacher; the other person decides to become a computer programmer because the pay is higher. Should the government punish either person because he is too stupid to make the right decision? 

The same analogy can be extended to recreational drug use. Some people prefer the experience, which various drugs can give them to the benefits of having a healthier body. 

Studying textbooks will improve anyone's sphere of knowledge and make them better able to improve themselves and society in the future. Does this mean that we should never spend time watching movies or listening to music? Should the government punish someone who wastes his time enjoying himself because he is not spending his time more wisely by contributing to society or engaging in self-improvement activities? 

Another argument people suggest is that by not having preventative laws, people would become reckless, irresponsible, and a menace to society. Preventative laws are those that supposedly prevent people from being victimized by making actions which do not harm others illegal. I contend that just the opposite is true. Preventative law encourages irresponsibility, and repealing such would foster in a new era of personal responsibility. 

The problem with preventative law is that it divorces cause and effect from people's decision making processes. Instead of encouraging people to think about what certain activities might lead to, it encourages people to abdicate their own reasoning to the fallible wisdom of the state. People recognize this fallibility, and break laws without a second thought if they believe that they will not incur any punishment. Worse, other people who basically believe that the state knows what is best in most circumstances will not consider the consequences of their actions if they are legally acceptable. Drinking alcohol, for example, is legally acceptable but is one of the most addictive and reason impairing drugs known. People interpret the state's prohibition of virtually all recreational drugs besides alcohol to be a sanction of its use. If all drugs were legalized people would understand that the state does not necessarily believe that any drug should be used recreationally and would be left to their own judgment about whether such an activity should be undergone. 

The realization that people should come to so that government intrusion on their own lives is mitigated is that "in order to be free, you must allow others to be free". Minorities cannot win by majority rule. Only through coalitions with other people with an attitude of tolerance for others' peaceful pursuits of happiness can the current state of affairs be corrected and a positive perception of government "by, for, and of the people" be reclaimed.

                                                                        The Obvious escapes many; will you let it escape you?

                                                                                                                          Capt. Obvious