Between
3 P.M. on Friday, August 3rd,
and 6 A.M. on Monday, August 6th,
2018, seventy-four people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. In the
first three hours of that Sunday alone, thirty people were shot, in
addition to another ten people within the few hours before and after
that. Eleven or twelve of those 74 people reportedly died as the
result of their injuries.
As
a response to the escalation in violence, hundreds of additional
police officers have been put on patrol in the city. The rash of
shootings has prompted calls for the resignation of Chicago Mayor
Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel, who served as Barack Obama's chief of staff
during the first year and a half of his presidency, condemned the
shootings, calling them “unacceptable in any neighborhood”.
Chicagoans might have considered this number of shootings “normal”
if they had occurred during the Fourth
of July weekend, but
given that they took place in early August, it just seems out of
place.
The
shootings have also renewed public interest in calling-in the
Illinois National Guard to help the Chicago Police Department patrol
problematic areas of the city. Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner
disagreed, saying “the national guard is not for neighborhood
policing”. Rauner, who is up for re-election this November, added
that improving economic opportunities would help to end the violence
in the city.
In
November, Rauner faces re-election challenge from Democratic nominee
and fellow billionaire J.B. Pritzker, Conservative Party nominee and
state legislator Sam McCann, and Libertarian Party nominee Kash
Jackson, as well as, possibly, various other independent, minor
party, and write-in candidates.
On
March 3rd,
Kash Jackson was nominated for governor by the Libertarian Party of
Illinois, defeating challengers Matthew C. Scaro and Jon Stewart.
Although Stewart was the only one of the three candidates who was
open to considering deploying the Illinois National Guard in Chicago,
he articulated his own comprehensive plan to address gang violence
during their campaigns, as did Mr. Scaro and Mr. Jackson. All three
candidates agreed that economic opportunity would play a part in the
solution to gang violence, as well as the decriminalization of
non-violent drug offenses and gun possession. Jackson in particular
would like to give inmates the opportunity to acquire skills while in
jail that will help them become valued, contributing members of
society and the labor force.
The
Libertarian Party and its candidates, of course, do not agree with
Bruce Rauner on everything.
If we liked Bruce Rauner, we wouldn't be running anyone against him.
However, I, and many L.P. members, feel that Bruce Rauner and Kash
Jackson are correct in their agreement on this particular issue.
Economic opportunity should
be part of the solution, and calling-in the National Guard should
not.
In
my opinion, this is a position which fits in line perfectly with what
libertarian-inspired public policy should look like. It also stands
as an example of what moderate Republicans do right, as far as
libertarians are concerned; looking to freedom,
rather than brute strength, to fight gangs, gun crime, and violent
behavior associated with the use and sale of drugs.
You
don't fix urban gang violence by calling the National Guard into
cities, nor by imposing a curfew on adults. That would violate the
freedoms of all people within the areas being patrolled; even adult
citizens who vote and pay taxes, and who of right ought to be allowed
to make their own decisions. To impose a curfew is to disregard
people's natural freedom of locomotion (movement; travel), and makes
them unfree to leave their homes. This is not Saudi Arabia, nor it is
Egypt in 2011, where governments can get away with using brutal,
uncivilized means to supposedly achieve civil “order” (which
essentially amounts to a state of legalized terror over the public).
The
patrol of streets by police officers, who often watch and even follow
people without warrants or reasonable suspicion, essentially create a
standing threat against citizens. When supplemented by officers
trained in military techniques, and especially when provided with
military-grade weaponry and surveillance technology, police
departments can be transformed into what essentially amounts to units
of a standing army. That is what the second and third amendments to
the U.S. Constitution were intended to prevent.
Calling-in
the National Guard sends the message that not just law-breakers, but
also potential law-breakers, will be dealt with as if they
were an invading army of foreign militants, posing an immediate
threat to people. This makes people feel as if they are not at home
in their own country. This treatment especially negatively
affects people of color, and brings back bad historical memories
(more than those whose relatives do not have stories of similar
situations can imagine).
Additionally,
the ubiquitous presence of police results in what is called “the
alienation of the will”, as well as the “Panopticon” effect. It
causes people to worry that they are being watched, and change their
behavior as a way to compensate. The motivation behind the Panopticon
is to cause people to “police their own behavior”. Unfortunately,
this has turned many of us into our own worst enemies. Thus, the
Panopticon has done little other than to put a man's leash into his
own hand, and to allow police to get away with shouting “fire” in
a crowded theater with no fire, by shooting at people who they claim
to be threats.
This
can have disastrous consequences, including 1) more secretive
behavior on the part of citizens and law enforcement officers alike,
2) government encouraging citizens to spy on their neighbors, and 3)
criminals killing more witnesses and police in order to get away with
their crimes than they otherwise would have (a problem which is
spurred-on by the harsh penalties involved). Moreover, 4) an
environment of fear is created in the community, as well as the
perception that one is being watched, and that privacy is impossible.
Also, 5) some citizens begin to behave as if they were police
officers. Not by protecting and serving, mind you, but by using the
violation of petty infractions as an excuse to shoot people who are
engaging in harmless behaviors which they personally don't like, and
by extrajudicially detaining someone who “looks like a terrorist”
in a grocery store for no reason, while they call the cops.
Making people believe that they are being watched at all times, has
more unintended consequences than we can anticipate. There is little
evidence that creating an environment of Kafkaesque fear – fear
that we'll be accused of anything and everything, and be on our own
to defend ourselves against charges our accusers can't even
articulate, and fear that we could be breaking some obscure law no
matter where we go and what we do - has ever made people into better
or more law-abiding citizens.
This
environment of fear has, thus far, only served to reproduce in the
streets what the people of Pamplona feel every year; that of an
approaching stampede shaking the ground, and of a public panic about
to ensue, which, for everybody's safety, needs to be prevented.
The
“law of the instrument”, explained by a quotation whose origin
has been attributed to many different people, states that “every
problem looks like a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer”.
Not all of our problems can be killed or destroyed; didn't we learn
that from our failed war on the ideology of terrorism?
I
believe that it is impossible to solve gang violence by treating
ordinary citizens as if they were standing threats to public order,
even if they are supposedly walking in dangerous neighborhoods. We
cannot put all of our potential “problems” in jail, just
because we think that they might do something bad or harmful.
Especially when our “problems” are human beings, who
nearly always have perfectly rational motivations for the things they
do.
The
idea that we can police our way into paradise, and that all we need
is increased police presence on the ground, presumes people guilty
until proven innocent, instead of innocent until proven guilty. It
puts the responsibility upon the accused person, to defend himself
against accusations which the accuser has little to no responsibility
to even articulate, much less for which to provide evidence. All of
this subverts our civil liberty to due process of law and fair legal
proceedings. It plays into the idea of “thoughtcrime” (a term
coined by George Orwell in his novel 1984)
and “pre-crime” (a term used in the film Minority
Report).
Using
this logic, we might as well put everyone
in jail! But then, who would hold the keys?
Willingness
to violate a petty infraction does not make one a violent criminal,
and failing to follow the law should not merit being treated like
some sort of hostile foreign invader who is incapable of living in a
civilized society.
In
Illinois, many Republicans want a more strict enforcement of the law,
and say “make an example of small-time rule-breakers”. But
ironically, some of them defend calls for Democratic former Illinois
Rod Blagojevich to be pardoned, and prematurely released from prison,
after being sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption. Granted,
political corruption is not technically a violent crime, but this is
our government, and we ought to be holding our elected officials to
higher standards than ordinary citizens.
Why
these Republicans are defending a corrupt Democrat is confusing
enough as it is; but maybe they're just taking Trump's lead. Either
way, the fact that they'd rather release Blagojevich (who isn't
eligible for release until May 2024) than “small-time
rule-breakers” is not only disturbing, but perhaps even shows a
tinge of racism. Maybe these are the same people who chose to set
Barabbas the murderer free instead of Jesus Christ.
It
amazes me; the lengths some Illinois Republicans are willing to go,
to compare non-violent petty offenders to murderers, and to cast Rod
Blagojevich as a faithful public servant who was unfairly targeted.
The man offered to sell the vacated seat of the outgoing U.S. Senator
who became president, and all but admitted it on audio tape.
As
we saw in Operation Iraqi Freedom, “shock and awe” failed to win
the United States of America “the hearts and minds of the Iraqi
people”. Likewise, the police should not expect to be able to win
the public's trust.
Especially
not by simply making sure that most of the police officers who are
arresting minorities, are themselves minorities, or “look like the
neighborhoods they're policing”. Especially not if they are
arresting their own families and neighbors for petty theft, minor
drug charges, and the possession of weapons without permits and
licenses.
The
only way the police can gain public trust is to make sure that people
are less afraid of the police than they are of gangs. And one of the
best ways you can do that is to decriminalize the non-violent
possession of drugs and weapons, and decriminalize prostitution by
consenting adults, and repeal laws against victimless crimes.
Fortunately, it's also one of the easiest ways to deal with
the problem, because the police would have less work to do,
and therefore less resources would be expended, leading to lower
taxes.
Why
shouldn't legalizing harmless, peaceful, non-violent market activity
– even if it is
supposedly
“black-market”
activity - be part of extending economic opportunity to these often
poor, overlooked neighborhoods experiencing gang violence? We should
be careful to avoid confusing non-violent “black market”
behavior, which is technically illegal but harmless; with violent
“red markets”, which involve crime for profit, such as
murder-for-hire, robbery and burglary, and coerced prostitution. The
longer we pretend that the black and red markets are the same, the
longer they will work together to avoid their mutual enemy the state.
Of
course, selling drugs and becoming a prostitute is by no means the
only
type of “economic opportunity” which would help struggling
neighborhoods. Bootlegging could be decriminalized. Jurisdictions
could reduce fines on becoming a food vendor without applying for a
permit, or they could get rid of the permits, or reduce the fees or
requirements therefor, or they could re-evaluate which professions
need strict permits altogether.
Job
opportunities aside, minor traffic and parking infractions which
result in no harm to person or property could be dealt with more
fairly; and in a more lenient fashion; and without relying on the
impossible dream of an omnipresent state, to make all behavior
everywhere to conform to what the state wants.
When
the people are not constantly antagonized - and overregulated,
tracked, and spied on – in their places of business (legitimate or
not) and elsewhere, then the prospect of citizens and police getting
along, and working together against violent crime, will become
possible. Only when that happens, will the people be less afraid of
the cops than they are of the gangs.
To
expect people to “snitch” on members of criminal gangs that would
want them dead for doing such a thing, is patently absurd. But it is
nowhere near as absurd as the idea that one
set of violent
criminals (the state) is qualified to crack down on another
set of violent
criminals who help them enforce the drug cartel. The state has just
as much of a history threatening and intimidating peaceful people as
organized criminal gangs do; maybe even more. Considering how much
material support Al Capone's gang provided to needy people, I almost
want to recommend that people turn-in problematic police
officers to their
local gangs.
To
many people, to snitch on a criminal is a “turn in a friend, get a
free plea deal” situation; it's a no-win situation. This is to say
that small-time drug dealers are afraid to turn-in drug dealers who
steal, kill, or poison the drugs they sell; and that prostitutes are
afraid to call the cops on pimps and johns who abuse them. Not only
are prostitutes and small-time drug dealers not criminals; if they
are reporting any of the offenses I have mentioned, they are victims
of crime. To prosecute
such people is to send a clear message that the police have no
interest in protecting and serving vulnerable members of society.
It's
not that co-conspirators, accomplices, and accessories to the crime
shouldn't be prosecuted; what I'm saying is that people who break
laws against victimless crimes, such as vice laws, should not be
perceived as criminals, simply because they have broken some petty
infractions. Harming “the public” is impossible, because what
“the public” is, is a social construct. It is a fantastical,
made-up thing, which does not tangibly exist, and thus cannot be
physically harmed, much less called to testify in open court. When
the public is the accuser, a fair trial is all but impossible, since
one cannot confront one's accuser, except through a duly authorized
representative (and what makes that representative acceptable is a
matter of debate).
Whether
we're talking about decriminalizing non-violent black market
activity, or legalizing under-the-table work in “gray markets”,
or just getting rid of some of the many laws that ordinary people
violate every day without even knowing it (several felonies per day,
by one estimate); the point is to rid ourselves of the need to create
laws whose enforcement results in the police unnecessarily
antagonizing the people.
Through
liberalization, legalization, and decriminalization of non-violent
behaviors, the need for police to enforce the law can be diminished,
and the presence of police in neighborhoods will diminish due to that
lessened need. Perhaps it helps to think of the police as an
occupation force, like the United States was, and still is, in Iraq
and Afghanistan: as the people rise up to defend their homeland, the
police will draw-down their level of active duty assistance in
policing those neighborhoods.
But
of course, people are only governable if the set of laws by which
they're expected to abide are reasonable, and are limited to the
protection of people and justly acquired property. Otherwise, a
system of officers of the peace (who may not go on patrols), citizen
militias (who may not forcibly recruit), and deputized citizens
(whose arrest powers must be limited), would burst through those
constraints, and collapse into an occupying army. “Mission creep”
would set in, and many people would be coerced into becoming
Stalinist “see something, say something” spies on their neighbors
- volunteer snitches who do police bidding without caring whether the
laws they're enforcing are just in the first place – in order to
survive through currying favor with the authorities.
But
no army, nor police force, can survive long, if it is itself itself
occupied with enforcing unjust laws that are impossible to obey, and
which are undesired by the people. It is only through the efforts of
people, who put up with and sometimes even help enforce unjust laws,
that the legitimacy and finance of the occupying police army are
maintained (or else destroyed).
While
we, as libertarians, may feel the impulse to reject calls to resolve
the problem of gang violence by “restoring family” as socially
conservative, traditionalist, or outmoded. However, the gubernatorial
nominee of the Libertarian Party of Illinois, Kash Jackson, believes
that fatherless homes are a major contributing factor leading to
increased likelihood of youth drug use and involvement in gangs. The
statistics prove him right on that.
Jackson
believes that family values are a potential solution to gang
violence, but he does not promote family values in the manner in
which Republicans are apt to promote family values. His is a “family
values” platform which avoids
that control-freak
fantasy of an omnipotent, state that can make criminals into
law-abiding citizens by locking them in cells and depriving them of
opportunities, nor that it can make peaceful citizens into better
people by treating them as criminal suspects.
Nor
does he stoop to paternalism; his platform supports equality of the
sexes, as the Libertarian Party has since its formation in 1971. When
you listen to Kash Jackson, you will not hear any judgmental,
dog-whistle-laden talk about minority fathers in urban areas being
deadbeats, nor talk about single mothers leading immoral lifestyles.
Rich or poor, white or black, whichever gender; Jackson and his
supporters in Illinois are following through on their promises to
treat individuals the same, regardless of their demographic
differences, and regardless of what they can do to benefit the
candidates personally.
On
June 29th,
2018, after the Libertarian Party of Illinois turned in tens of
thousands of signatures to the Illinois State Board of Elections in
Springfield, the candidates and several state party officials held a
press conference. At that press conference, Kash Jackson criticized
Social Security Title IV-D (child support), saying that “Illinois
sets support orders that exceed double of the national
recommendations.” Kash Jackson recognizes that it is the Social
Security system, not necessarily moral failings on the part of
parents, that has created the mess that families are in (especially
in Illinois).
Like
Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Jackson has also
criticized what Ryan called “the poverty trap in welfare”;
something that is a key factor contributing to the difficulty of
transitioning from welfare to work. In this “poverty trap”,
people are cut-off from government assistance as soon as they become
required to report new income. As a result, people who receive
government assistance are effectively given a disincentive to get off
of welfare. While Ryan criticized this problem more generally,
Jackson has criticized it in regards to the fact that single-parent
households are more likely to need some form of supplemental income
than two-parent households, whether from government or through child
support. But then, of course, Jackson emphasizes in his speeches that
the government of Illinois gets paid by the federal government every
time it helps to collect on child support orders. That aside, the
point is that not only does Social Security offer this perverse
incentive; other government assistance programs do too.
It
would not be unfair to conclude that a two-parent household – with
parents of any gender,
sex, or sexual orientation – can do a better job of raising a child
than the state can.
The
Libertarian Party joins those conservatives who recognize that, at
least in Illinois, child support is an extortion racket, which all
too often assumes fathers to be at fault, and which hurts good
parents as well as
“deadbeat” and abusive parents.
But
the Libertarian Party also
joins those liberals and progressives who know that parents also
shouldn't have their children taken away, nor their right to become
parents, simply because they are an undocumented immigrant, or gay,
or unwed either.
At
the Libertarian Party of Illinois's June 29th
press conference, Jackson stated, “No
Illinois citizen should be kicked out, and separated from their
children. The exact same thing that happens to the kids on the
border, that's been happening to American citizens with child
protective services and with our family court system, should be ended
today, because it's Draconian, it's archaic, and it shouldn't
happen.”
And
all
the evidence we have seen – from the concentration camps at the
border (which, for all we know, are operating on a for-profit basis)
and the separation of children from their parents (at the border and
internally); to the jailing of first-time and petty offenders who
then
learn criminal lifestyles while
in jail; to the failed
wars on crime, drugs, terrorism, and poverty – points to Jackson
and the Libertarians being right.
It's
just too bad that Libertarians want to defund public schools. Without
public schools, who would teach your children that all of these
catastrophic failures of leadership are just the price we pay for
living in a civilized society, and that the community and the
government know better than parents what's right for their children
anyway?
Written
Between August 8th
and 11th,
and 14th,
2018
Published
on August 14th,
2018
