I am 60 years old. I am a Libertarian Conservative. I believe in limited government and free markets. Before you label me 'One of those Kooks', note that I read Von Mises, Rothbard and Hayack. I mostly agree with Friedman and Thomas, but have some issues with Stiglitz. I have read the BNAct and Statutes. (In fact I used to quote sections at length in years past.) I believe that our current Constitution is a limp rag written by a bunch of progressive lawyers.
The purpose of a duly elected Government at any level is the same. That is to meet the needs of present and future people within that jurisdiction. Note that I say 'needs' rather than 'wants'.
We all want our house values to rise, our taxes to fall, we want our water to be cleaner, our sewage to not smell. All of this costs money from somewhere. Planning and zoning can make house values rise dramatically by preventing others from building and moving to the area. Current residents like this, future residents don't. Green spaces and Parks enhance property values by using public money to improve existing resident's aesthetic value while punishing future residents.
Commercial developments enhance values by lowering taxes, but devalue property nearby. Progressives want you to force people to live in high density clusters which is largely why future residents want to leave where they live now. They site more efficient transit and services as an excuse. Please remember that needs come first, wants must have wide support, and be a betterment for future residents. I had the misfortune to be on a Regional Board that had extremely high utility costs due to previous boards having undersized the water mains in efforts to prevent development. The development eventually happened anyway, and we had to dig up the undersized lines years before projected, and replace them with larger lines.
As a former two term regional politician, I understand the issues you face. If you find yourself elected this Saturday, you will face immense pressure from an untold amount of pressure groups, all the way from one angry guy on the sidewalk, to the United Nations, (at least according to the front person wanting public money). Standing for public office is one of the most honourable and giving things a citizen can do. I commend you highly, but ask, please remember, when elected, you represent all the residents in total, not just the ones you think voted for you. You also hold our trust and must not break that trust.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Tazers
I have to say I don't like tazers. They are the perfect poster boy for liberalism. After years and years of defining deviancy down, we as a society have allowed a lack of discrimination to prevent us admitting that some scumbags just won't follow society's norms. We pay a huge price, financially and morally, to have police on the street to enforce those standards.
By giving the police guns we don't allow ourselves, we have created a special class of citizen, technically a super-citizen, with special rights and freedoms. In return, we expect special performance. A police officer is expected to go into harm’s way. While the average citizen is running away from gunfire, earthquakes, Tsunamis or assorted other holocausts, we expect the police to run towards the problem. Being at the sharp end, judgment under stress isn't just nice to have, but is essential. A police officer's primary function is to act as society's representative at the scene, and to make threat analysis decisions in any situation, and to deal with the threat in the best interest of society, not any individual citizen involved in the incident. Please note, the police are not there to protect the victim! Their only role is to protect society. Crimes are not committed against victims, they are committed against society!
Historically, police responded, dealt with incidents with appropriate force most of the time, occasionally using what was later determined, (in nice air conditioned offices with tea or coffee in hand, lighting just right), excessive force. Note that almost all of these incidents have two very common denominators. No gun was used, and visible bruising was evident. Canadian police have a long history of almost never resorting to gunfire in the line of duty. In the vast majority of shooting cases, the officer was vindicated.
As our society slouches to Gomorrah, criminal activity is changing. The widespread acceptance of drug use and other depraved behavior has lead to two largely different mainstream criminal activities, both related to the drug trade. In one stream are the drug importers, growers and distributors with major crimes, particularly murder and attempted murder. These first group members are seen by society as actually criminal, and police have no problem dealing with these criminals, (if they manage to catch them). Those in the other group are the drug users with their relatively petty crimes.
After thousands of handwringing stories on television, years of community activists and protesters, we as a society have become uncomfortable with calling these people criminals. We have been convinced to consider these people victims. This leads to the tazer.
Once the criminals were effectively decriminalized, the justice system hasn’t been able to effectively deal with them. Police are put in the unenviable position of having to deal with actual crimes committed against a majority of the population, while having to treat the perpetrators as victims as well. Anyone ever having had to deal with drug induced hysteria knows that using rational treatment and restraint is in-effective. We have demonstrated with public outcry that we, as a society, will not allow the police to use their guns to effect the arrest of these `victims’. Police know by experience that using normal force will result in lack of control, AND, visible bruising, probably leading to `excessive force allegations’. Enter the tazer. Instant control, no bruising, image of humaine treatment. A marriage made in heaven.
The problem is, the tazer isn’t as benign as advertised. Far too many people die after tazering.
If the police were content to only use the tazer on the decriminalized petty criminals high on drugs, we would probably be able to rationalize the occasional death. But, as in all tools, mission creep has caused the police to take the easier way out, and have started to use the tazer on anyone that confronts them, whether the individual is rational or not.
In our compact with police, society has authorized force to subdue violence. We HAVE NOT authorized violence to quell passive resistance. We now are seeing police use tazers indiscriminately against citizens who pose no threat of violence to society, just because they can, and to make their perceived job easier. It is time Canadians said enough! Either do the job you are being paid to do, or find something else to do. I would give every officer a choice, EITHER carry a gun, OR a tazer, never both. I expect that tazers would vanish in a few days.
By giving the police guns we don't allow ourselves, we have created a special class of citizen, technically a super-citizen, with special rights and freedoms. In return, we expect special performance. A police officer is expected to go into harm’s way. While the average citizen is running away from gunfire, earthquakes, Tsunamis or assorted other holocausts, we expect the police to run towards the problem. Being at the sharp end, judgment under stress isn't just nice to have, but is essential. A police officer's primary function is to act as society's representative at the scene, and to make threat analysis decisions in any situation, and to deal with the threat in the best interest of society, not any individual citizen involved in the incident. Please note, the police are not there to protect the victim! Their only role is to protect society. Crimes are not committed against victims, they are committed against society!
Historically, police responded, dealt with incidents with appropriate force most of the time, occasionally using what was later determined, (in nice air conditioned offices with tea or coffee in hand, lighting just right), excessive force. Note that almost all of these incidents have two very common denominators. No gun was used, and visible bruising was evident. Canadian police have a long history of almost never resorting to gunfire in the line of duty. In the vast majority of shooting cases, the officer was vindicated.
As our society slouches to Gomorrah, criminal activity is changing. The widespread acceptance of drug use and other depraved behavior has lead to two largely different mainstream criminal activities, both related to the drug trade. In one stream are the drug importers, growers and distributors with major crimes, particularly murder and attempted murder. These first group members are seen by society as actually criminal, and police have no problem dealing with these criminals, (if they manage to catch them). Those in the other group are the drug users with their relatively petty crimes.
After thousands of handwringing stories on television, years of community activists and protesters, we as a society have become uncomfortable with calling these people criminals. We have been convinced to consider these people victims. This leads to the tazer.
Once the criminals were effectively decriminalized, the justice system hasn’t been able to effectively deal with them. Police are put in the unenviable position of having to deal with actual crimes committed against a majority of the population, while having to treat the perpetrators as victims as well. Anyone ever having had to deal with drug induced hysteria knows that using rational treatment and restraint is in-effective. We have demonstrated with public outcry that we, as a society, will not allow the police to use their guns to effect the arrest of these `victims’. Police know by experience that using normal force will result in lack of control, AND, visible bruising, probably leading to `excessive force allegations’. Enter the tazer. Instant control, no bruising, image of humaine treatment. A marriage made in heaven.
The problem is, the tazer isn’t as benign as advertised. Far too many people die after tazering.
If the police were content to only use the tazer on the decriminalized petty criminals high on drugs, we would probably be able to rationalize the occasional death. But, as in all tools, mission creep has caused the police to take the easier way out, and have started to use the tazer on anyone that confronts them, whether the individual is rational or not.
In our compact with police, society has authorized force to subdue violence. We HAVE NOT authorized violence to quell passive resistance. We now are seeing police use tazers indiscriminately against citizens who pose no threat of violence to society, just because they can, and to make their perceived job easier. It is time Canadians said enough! Either do the job you are being paid to do, or find something else to do. I would give every officer a choice, EITHER carry a gun, OR a tazer, never both. I expect that tazers would vanish in a few days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)