Carte Blanche: Police's Role In The Social Contract
Stephen Maturen / Stringer
Police reform is finally up for debate in the American political arena, but it has been an essential talking point within libertarian circles since it is at the very essence of personal freedom that the ideology seeks to preserve. While it is most certainly debatable what the most effective solution might be, personal freedoms have been at risk from the police state since the very first Alien and Sedition Acts passed by President John Adams in 1798.
George Floyd’s death was preventable. Minneapolis police had failed to eliminate the lethal choke hold imposed on George Floyd, even after the department had received guidance from the Department of Justice. Derek Chauvin, the officer responsible for George Floyd’s death, had been an ostensibly problematic cop for the entirety of his career yet no actions were taken against his status to serve.
As Black Lives Matter and other independent entities have organized protests across the country, onlookers have heard a very prominent chant: “defund the police”. When I hear “take money away from the government”, my interest is very often engaged. Government control and expansion have been a virus in this country’s history, and abuse of that power by the federal government must be stymied to preserve liberty.
When America was established as a state under the Constitution, the Framers sought to make the federal government supreme in authority, however, the bulk of responsibility for legislation and policing was supposed to be left to the states. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was an inappropriate response to high levels of crime. Crime was high and murder was at dangerous levels, however, we are still not entirely sure how to truly solve the issue of crime in communities.
According to a policy analysis of the ‘94 Crime Bill by the Cato Institute, for every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate among males, crime increases by an estimated 9 percent. Throughout the policy analysis by Cato, the researcher toils with the data over whether an increase in police truly solves crime or if it fails to truly control the essence of criminal actions. The 94’ Crime Bill justifies banning of certain semi-automatic weapons, pumps federal funds into local departments, and justifies the death penalty for four other crimes besides murder.
First of all, victimless crimes do not deserve mandatory minimums if any incarceration at all. The paternalistic nightmare that we have lived in since the conception of President Richard Nixon’s drug war back in 1971 has left many innocent lives in its wake. If the government is going to take such a “just” initiative to declare such an abstract war that it would infringe upon the rights and liberties of individuals, then it has truly reached levels of tyranny.
Furthermore, the federal government has decided reallocation of resources and funds shouldn’t go to training officers and improving efficiency, but they implemented the 1033 program to distribute previously used military-grade equipment. Even though the ‘94 crime bill was “so effective” at reducing crime, SWAT raids, which were as low as three a day when crime was 63% higher, have increased to nearly 120 daily according to Cato Institute.
The most infamous policy decision to restrict the liberties of Americans, besides slavery, is easily the era of Prohibition under the 18th Amendment. If you want to argue against that assertion, it was so turbulent and unpopular that they literally had to pass the 21st amendment to repeal the 18th amendment. At least that era had the decency to limit individual freedom by passing an amendment, but no such amendment has been passed to justify the massive expenditure and imprisonment initiated by the War on Drugs.
Of course, we shouldn’t be too harsh on the government for being inefficient and counterproductive because it is in its very nature to do so; we only exacerbate the issues when we demand it to govern too many aspects of life better left to localized authority. Even though I am being harsh on conduct and management of the police, I do not agree with the idea of total abolition, however, it seems necessary to reduce the franchise of police action given by the federal government.
The English philosopher John Locke, who is most reputable for his arguments for the protection of private property, is one of the most essential historical thinkers to libertarian thought and ideology. In his Second Treatise on Government, he discusses the concept of the social contract between citizens and the civil bodies placed in charge of them; according to Locke, when the state threatens to evolve into a tyrannical entity, citizens have a right if not a moral obligation to take it down.
Now I am not suggesting overthrowing the state, but we need to hold our government more accountable, if not completely reset the entire system. Should the country turn to the federal government to solve every problem occurring in local communities? No, since it hasn’t seemed to be working all too great. On the reverse side, should we allow the government to seize power in order to “solve” our problems and gain political points with voters? That is an emphatic no.
Locke’s justification for overthrowing a tyrannical government is rooted in the basis that a consistent undermining and dissolving of democratic institutions in favor of tyrannical authority.
If we don’t want the problem to persist we need to re-evaluate why the most democratic branch of our government, Congress, has turned into such a lame-duck body that they cannot reliably make any form of effective policy decision. Due to this, the public has become comfortable with flagrant usage of executive orders.
What I propose is that we need to reconvene a Constitutional Convention. When the Articles of Confederation revealed systemic issues with the governance of the new state, it took a violent uprising in Shays Rebellion for the leaders of the newly born US that change had to be brought. However, instead of a convening of state leaders to discuss the systemic issues of America, we rely on the President, whoever it may be, to unilaterally amend society.
This Constitutional Convention would have to be separate from just Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President because there needs to be an evaluation from outside as well as inside the system. Individual liberties and freedoms must be reasserted, and I hope a violent uprising will not have to be the necessary step for the country to recognize such a thing.
If not a full-fledged convention, we need an amendment to end the continuation of the drug war and to restructure drug usage and distribution laws. Paternalism, the idea that the government knows how to handle an individual’s affairs better than they do, has invaded the American system and rendered a tyrannical body in D.C. This is not a condemnation of any specific individual, except maybe Woodrow Wilson because he really was just the worst, but it is a warning to the entirety of America that we are on a dangerous path.
