His point here is that all law, no matter how inconsequential, brings a potential death penalty to those who resist it. That is, there is no infraction so small that the police will not kill you for if you fail to keep it. The most prominent illustration of this is Eric Garner, who was selling loosies (single cigarettes) on a street corner in NYC. When busted, instead of meekly complying, he passively resisted. This was grounds for the death penalty, applied by cops right there on the street. Law and order types, standing this principle COMPLETELY on its head, argue that this is the reason we should simply obey all laws.
So who is at fault - the cops doing what they are required to do, or the ones passing the laws????
The common sense approach here is that we should have far far fewer laws, and far far fewer people enforcing them. Do you REALLY want to be killing people for selling untaxed cigarettes? Really?
Why is that such a difficult concept for people to grasp?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/
So who is at fault - the cops doing what they are required to do, or the ones passing the laws????
The common sense approach here is that we should have far far fewer laws, and far far fewer people enforcing them. Do you REALLY want to be killing people for selling untaxed cigarettes? Really?
Why is that such a difficult concept for people to grasp?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/
