Young People: Menaces to Society or Our Future?
June 28th, 2007
In my explorations of more community-based activism I've identified neighborliness and familiarity with one's fellow residents as an important element in the development of bottom-up institutions to replace the need for top-down, centralized, managerial government. In my exploration of community solidarity I attended my local neighborhood watch meeting. My neighborhood is in the west end and is pretty quiet and peaceful, with lots of families that engender a sense of a thriving, balanced community in me.
That's why I was struck by how kids were singled out as problems, not residents with interests and perspectives of their own:
Well, the vast majority of attendees were elderly and white. Their complaints were about kids, of course. Now, I don’t condone any criminal activity, but my impression of the complaints were that these elderly residents have a different lifestyle than their younger neighbors, and they feel threatened by kids who are out on the streets carrying on as kids will. Older kids were accused of racing cars. But generally, the younger generations were seen as nuisances, and their side of the story and their interests were not represented. Certain households of minority racial demographics were also singled out for scrutiny.
What is lost in these complaints is the truth that these kids, their parents, and others targeted by the meeting’s attendants are residents. They are part of the group of people whose interests the neighborhood watch organization should be representing! No talk of reaching out to them or presenting a way to work things out. No talk of whether they are being served by the neighborhood or county.
Moderating a significant portion of the meeting, and hearing these complaints, was an officer with the local police department, whose name I won’t mention but whose affiliation should be easy for a regular reader to ascertain. He encouraged people to call often on the slightest of suspicions, urging them to leave sorting out the good guys from the “bad guys” (a phrase often invoked) to the professionals. He singled out kids as a big problem, stressing that once their names are in the police system, they track them for life (as if that alone will stop kids from being kids). He even said (I couldn’t believe this) that his officers “like arresting people” and urged attendees to give his department opportunities to catch kids.
Just as I was working on this blog entry, I saw Radley Balko blog a YouTube video of police choking kids for simply riding skateboards. And Richmond City Council is apparently creating a snitch class among its residents to single out kids who party for special treatment by the police, according to SaveRichmond.org.
Where is the sense of proportionality - that these are children who deserve patience, attention, gentle - not brutal - reprimands, and engagement in the way neighborhoods and communities work? They are the future of the community, and people who ignore this and see them as mere obstacles to their retirement are incredibly short sighted (not to mention the naivete of moving into a college neighborhood and being flummoxed by partying!).
This, my friends, is what happens when communities break down. They require politicians, bureaucrats, and hired muscle to come in and mediate what should be organic, face-to-face interactions between neighbors. Gone is any sense that the community's children are worth tolerating is entertained - they're just somebody else's kids. I'm no fan of Hillary's "it takes a village" philosophy, because it expressly calls for more government intervention, rather than recognizing it as the root problem in society.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 AM As Larken Rose points out in the piece pasted below, the problem is the assignment of authority to anyone. Larken writes and I agree. "The belief in government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on." Mike Eck -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 A Terrorist By Any Other Name Dear Subscriber, The belief in "authority" drastically warps the way most people view reality. Oddly, people like to think the belief is a civilizing influence, when the exact opposite is true: the most heinous evils because generally accepted as legitimate and good when done by a perceived "authority." Most people are utterly incapable of viewing the world without their authority-colored glasses dramatically twisting what they see. The belief in "government," man-made "law," and "authority" in general, make most people unable to see the literal truth of what is going on. For years now the government and the media have been condemning the evils of "terrorists." Who are they talking about? Well, if you use the government's definition, a "terrorist" is one who uses violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end. As many of you have heard by now, a collection of several vehicles, apparently including an armed vehicle, filled with heavily armed state and federal "law enforcement" personnel, was seen yesterday heading towards the New Hampshire home of Ed and Elaine Brown. As I understand it, those "authorities" have now laid seige to the place, and cut the phone lines, but it sounds like there has been no raid and no arrest as of yet. (Incidentally, I'm just getting this from various internet posts, so don't expect me to have any special inside info.) In one newspaper article, one of the "law enforcement" personnel said that they had no intention whatsoever of having a violent conflict with the Browns. Yeah, sure. I guess they brought along the armored vehicle to do some fun off-roading in their spare time. Can anyone tell me, with a straight face, that the government is NOT using violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve a political end? Mr. and Mrs. Brown did not assault anyone, or rob anyone, or defraud anyone. Their "sin" was to not pay the federal terrorists their "protection" money, which (as far as I can tell) the Browns had good reason to believe they didn't even "legally" owe. But whether a terrorist passes a "law" before committing his violence makes no difference to whether his actions are righteous or justified. Unfortunately, it does make a huge difference to whether people PERCEIVE the actions as justified. If not for the belief in "authority," any moron could see that the Browns are now surrounded by a gang of terrorists. But when the terrorism is "legal" (whatever that means), the vast majority of people suddenly see the VICTIM as the bad guy, and the perpetrators as noble "law enforcers." There is one up-side to the current thuggery being used against the Browns: it is happening in the open. Normally the terrorism perpetrated by American "authorities" is only implied, which helps people not think of it as terrorism. EVERY demand by government is backed by the ability and willingness to use force, including deadly force. Because most people comply long before such a threat ever becomes blatant, we rarely see the true nature of the beast. Only when people like the Browns refuse to comply with the veiled threats dressed up as "requests" do we get to see the NON-veiled threats, which show the true nature of the American terrorists. If you want a taste of what lies behind the euphemism of American "law enforcement," go rent "Waco: Rules of Engagement." These people are murderers and terrorists. Behind their uniforms and pretended legitimacy, they are despicable, power-happy, authority- worshiping fascists, who will not hesitate to injure, torture, or kill their fellow man if the "government" myth tells them to. I very much hope that the Browns have a better end result than the Branch Davidians did. One advantage they have is that a lot more people are paying attention to what is really going on up there (though it sounds like the terrorists, who like their sins to be done in secret, have cut their phone lines). It was only a few short years ago that I considered myself to be a supporter of "law enforcement." After a few first-hand experiences (a lot more tame than what the Browns are going through) showed me who and what these people really are, I am proud to say that I will forever be an enemy of the state, as any decent person should be. You cannot be pro-government and anti-terrorism. The two are one in the same. Sincerely, Larken Rose www.larkenrose.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkZpX8oACgkQGmVFo/iGj309YgP/W/hEGe7nirFcl0W1AHqGOdJUez9a mPpuXpnGKazvOXnGEeESavErgc/y3iwfm2SFqLGrv5OhNjgtfRbzSwxFuwKmXqDMgFU1 EFYQ6hocUJhro58Anf/TWSnk5UU0F0Bulj9Sibn16j62/VNgRgEQdQenxH8QZI9XZl01 LarTVJA= =ZODC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to tmds-on@mail-list.com