Skip to main content

Law's No Substitute for Responsibility

Across the United States, residents appear to have ceded increasing authority and, concomitantly, responsibility to the power structures of government. 

Whether at the local, state or federal level, residents appear increasingly prepared, or more likely groomed, to accept government as the universal answer to all social problems; likewise, they appear more prepared than ever to embrace government as the legislator of all things moral and ethical.

Where there arises any sort of discomfort, threat or discord within the community, individuals appear more likely than ever to consult law enforcement or, more broadly, the word, suspected word or conscience of the law; they incorrectly assume that the law has a conscience, that its agents are properly incentivized, or even authorized, to promote — or even begin to understand — the interests of the community. 

Moreover, where there appears to be no obvious violation of the law, many members of the community have almost robotically assumed that no threat or problem exists at all, that it is no one’s business to concern himself with the activities taking place directly outside of his own house, insofar as they are legal. 

Of course, the nature of this statement is flawed by obtusely implying that legal activity must never concern anyone, that it must always accompany desirable activity, or that such activity occurs exclusive of the threat of eventual illegal activity. 

To that end, the only way to possibly prevent criminal activity, or to defend oneself against it, is to recognize the features and machinations of activity that appear legal at the time. 

In this context, there appears to be an increasing measure of confusion within communities around the subjects of legal and suspicious behavior, how much to tolerate of the latter, and whether to do anything about activity that is strictly legal. 

This destructive thought process is rather unique to the corners of the globe so tightly governed by laws, ordinances and regulations that the average person has largely abandoned the notion of taking any responsibility over his own community. 

He seldom talks to his neighbors anyway, so it bears hardly any cost on his conscience if they are eventually robbed or assaulted. 

"So long as it's not me," he thinks.

He neglects to acknowledge, much less appreciate, the extent to which neighborhoods and communities are improved and protected by the individuals with the greatest vested interest: the residents who live there. 

He neglects the extent to which declining standards and vigilance affect the safety and security of his own home, and with this he neglects the limits of the code of law.

Ultimately, the laws planted upon society do not intend to enumerate every socially-acceptable form of human behavior, and they do not strip individuals of their private responsibilities in their own lives and communities. 

Where we find activities that are strictly legal, we cannot say for certain whether they are desirable. 

There are a myriad of problems that occasionally require immediate or community action, which law enforcement and the judicial system cannot possibly resolve alone. 


In the end, it is the community that sets and upholds its standards, whether passively or actively, not merely the code of law or its agents. 

Neighborhoods and individuals serve to complement the code of law by cooperating for the betterment of their respective communities, and they collaborate to address the nuances that any larger body of uninvested agents could never truly appreciate. 

Ultimately, law cannot and will not solve every imaginable problem within our community. 

This error in judgment appears to have leaked into the forums of our local, state and national discourse, which has dissuaded individuals from — or even penalized them for — assuming responsibility over their communities. 

We are all safer for the vigilance exhibited and concerns raised by the members of our community, whose vested interests naturally cause them to care more about our neighborhood than any bureaucrat or law enforcement officer. 

While there are those who worry about the risks of paranoia or those of raising awareness around suspicious activities that ultimately turn out to be innocent, the risks of remaining silent and willfully ignorant are far greater. 

Finally, law and its enforcement agents are reactionary, primarily compelled to action only after the fact, whereas individuals within the community can be proactive about preventing crime before it happens. 

This is how we serve each other as neighbors, by fostering an environment of mutual respect for the property and interests of those who live among us. 

And with a watchful and vigilant set of eyes upon the community, this is how we discourage the contemptible activities that perniciously threaten the community or ultimately violate the hardened code of law.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi