This story by Fox9 is badly written, and there’s very little about the subject of the tweet.
But to the extent it’s true? It’s exactly as predicted:
When government stops providing the order that justifies all those taxes, so they can raise families, run businesses, earn livings, they will take the task of providing that order into their own hands.
And eventually, especially if the city takes the side of disorder, those people will be rough folks who don’t talk with cops or respect due process.
Anarcho-tyranny. The beloved of the political class get everything, the rest of us, nothing.
this is the root of self-government – action with lasting results – no experts needed
If you want more of something, subsidize it (homelessness). If you want less, tax it (responsible homeowners).
I do not not see a problem with homeless camps….. as long as they are in somebody else’s neighborhood.
Greg,
Well played!
If events in the UK and Europe are any guide (and why shouldn’t they be), the people taking action will be labeled “far-right activists” by the government and media/
Why is that “homeless camp” behind a fence? Is it to protect the bums, or the residents?
The history of the “social compact” is worth considering.
Originally, each family looked after its own, old to young, like The Waltons. Extended family groups supported each other against outside families, like the Hatfield cousins against the McCoys. Large enough family groups became tribes fighting each other – read the Old Testament – and eventually hired mercenaries – Capults versus Montagues. The Thirty Years War ended that.
Private armies were banned by the Treaty of Westphalia meaning only government could have military forces. They were mostly directed against external enemies not criminals. Domestic law enforcement varied by location – sometimes by the Reeve of the Shire (the “sheriff”) or sometimes by citizens groups – the Citizens Vigilance Committee (“vigilantes”).
Pioneer America had regional officers – the Marshall – and towns had a Night Watch but the modern police force as we know it in the US is a descendant of Sir Robert Peel’s establishment of the Metropolitan Police in London, whose officers were known as “Bobbies” or “Peelers.” Families, tribes, and citizens groups no longer had authority to apprehend or punish criminals – those powers were given to the government in exchange for promises of fair and equal treatment under the law. That’s the Social Compact – we give the power to politicians and politicians promise to use it properly.
But if the government fails to keep its end of the bargain, why should we keep ours?
And if the deal is off, then society reverts to the status quo ante, meaning armed citizens take law enforcement into their own hands. When that brings them into conflict with formal law enforcement, law enforcement is outnumbered and outgunned. America is a nation of voluntary legal compliance. If enough people compete to believe that they don’t have to follow the law and the police are not on our side, civil order breaks down. Minneapolis Third Precinct, the Portland Autonomous Zone, downtown San Francisco, carjacking and panhandling and homeless camps everywhere . . . it’s spreading.
The incident above is only the latest example.
Interesting comment, Mr Jones. Reminds me of the Instapundit quip about how the police don’t protect citizens from criminals, but the other way around.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 08.26.24 : The Other McCain