New at Reason
Radley Balko worries about sharing the road with politicians, and then asks why they feel entitled to tell him how to drive.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Why wasn't Corzine's driver given a ticket for letting his passenger ride without a seat belt? I think his driver was a state highway patrolman.
Dan T. | May 10, 2007, 12:10pm | #
Not only of Radley's better efforts.I doubt anybody would disagree that our leaders should not violate basic safety rules, the whole "our elected leaders think they're more important than us" schick falls flat.
Of course the President or the Governor is more important than the average citizen.
edit: "While I doubt anybody would disagree that our leaders should not violate basic safety rules..."
Dr. K | May 10, 2007, 12:12pm | #
I would just like to point out there's nothing inherently dangerous about driving down a freeway at 100 mph.Doing so in a Suburban while shoving the peons out of your way, on the other hand...
David | May 10, 2007, 12:12pm | #
Of course the President or the Governor is more important than the average citizen.This trolling attempt is not one of your better efforts, Dan.
R C Dean | May 10, 2007, 12:24pm | #
Dan, I wasn't aware that laws applied to people or not based on their "importance."Or, in Corzine's case, self-importance.
Why wasn't Corzine's driver given a ticket for letting his passenger ride without a seat belt? I think his driver was a state highway patrolman.
Kinda answered yourself, there, didn't you.
dead_elvis | May 10, 2007, 12:29pm | #
It is so sad that Radley deserves kudos for this. In a more sane world, this would be the story everyone was writing. This article is *THE ONLY* article I've seen mentioning this. The MSM's lack of questioning politicians' self-importance and entitlement in this case is glaring.JFK | May 10, 2007, 12:31pm | #
I can understand why security concerns would cause very high-ranking federal officials - the president and vice president, for example - to require a motorcade and have streets opened up to allow them to passI can't.
It's an ego stroke, and that's all it is. What possible security can there be in making the target even more obvious?
swillfredo pareto | May 10, 2007, 12:34pm | #
Corzine apologized for his "poor example" in failing to buckle upJust how narcissistic is Corzine to think that more than a tiny fraction of the population actually looks at him as an example.
daniel k | May 10, 2007, 12:42pm | #
Another example of maybe this isn't:1. a nation of laws and not men
2. all men are equal before the law
3. laws are enforced impartially without regard to race, creed, or station (in guvernmint)
Of course, maybe politicins before the court are treated equally - they just don't get before the court becasue they're not investigated, arrested, or prosecuted.
gaijin | May 10, 2007, 12:45pm | #
Of course the President or the Governor is more important than the average citizen.Trolling or sarcasm aside, DanT, the average citizen is way more important to his average family and friends than are any of the average people they elect to such important governmental orifices.
Tbone | May 10, 2007, 1:07pm | #
JFK,Don't be daft. An armored limousine stuck in stop and go traffic is a much easier target than one doing 60 mph - at least for the weaponry typical outside US military applications.
Whether or not the protection is deserved is a different question.
Don't be daft. An armored limousine stuck in stop and go traffic is a much easier target than one doing 60 mph - at least for the weaponry typical outside US military applications.
Whether or not the protection is deserved is a different question.
Because there have been sooooo many assasination attempts on state governors and city mayors...
Whether or not the protection is deserved is a different question.
Because there have been sooooo many assasination attempts on state governors and city mayors...
Tbone | May 10, 2007, 1:20pm | #
A perfect example of undeserved protection.But with govs and mayors being the lead of their respective law enforcement branches, it is a perk they'll never give up. I'd be happy here in IL if they would just ticket the state legislators who rocket between Springfield and Chicago. But since they are part of the elite, good luck on that as well.
A perfect example of undeserved protection.
Absolutely agreed.
I had a on-foot experience recently that I thought was amusing.
I work near Condi's residence and I was walking with a bunch of 20-somethings over to a nearby bar for a couple of rounds. We encounter Condi and her entourage in a very confined area outside.
I motioned for the group to hold up, since they were already in the tunnel, and you should have heard the grumblings. "Why should we have to stop?" was the common retort.
I agreed with the sentiment, but it would have been entertaining to see that philosophy in action with her Secret Service detail.
She at least waved "hi" to us.
Absolutely agreed.
I had a on-foot experience recently that I thought was amusing.
I work near Condi's residence and I was walking with a bunch of 20-somethings over to a nearby bar for a couple of rounds. We encounter Condi and her entourage in a very confined area outside.
I motioned for the group to hold up, since they were already in the tunnel, and you should have heard the grumblings. "Why should we have to stop?" was the common retort.
I agreed with the sentiment, but it would have been entertaining to see that philosophy in action with her Secret Service detail.
She at least waved "hi" to us.
TomWright | May 10, 2007, 1:34pm | #
This is NJ.The aristocracy has always been held above the commoner. This is why it embraces the democratic party, where the elite talk down to the downtrodden in a way to make the downtrodden think they matter. Such as protecting them from the danger of having their own firearms, their own choice of schools, their own local paramedics, their own local tv stations, their own private water supplies, control over their own property, living without the new internal passports issued by the DMV that NJ was so eager to embrace, digging in your own garden more than 6 inches without state permission, cutting a tree without asking official sanction, driving at speeds that highways were designed for, or anything else you might wish to do without state supervision.
This is NJ. You don't like it? Leave. You have permission to do so.
For now.
And according to this: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1739.asp
There was a push to ticket more of us 'regular' motorists after 'we' criticized the trooper's abilities to drive...
Maybe no one buy Radley has written about this because of potential retaliation...
There was a push to ticket more of us 'regular' motorists after 'we' criticized the trooper's abilities to drive...
Maybe no one buy Radley has written about this because of potential retaliation...
Dan T. | May 10, 2007, 2:13pm | #
Trolling or sarcasm aside, DanT, the average citizen is way more important to his average family and friends than are any of the average people they elect to such important governmental orifices.Of course, but the average citizen is significantly less important to society as a whole than the society's leaders.
This should be obvious, even to those as full of irrational hatred of government found here.
wsdave | May 10, 2007, 2:13pm | #
And then we have a bunch of politicos complaining about how big corporations are subjecting the rest of us.wsdave | May 10, 2007, 2:16pm | #
OK Dan T., I'll feed the troll:If a Governer is more important than the rest of us, how about a Mayor? A water district council person? A cop? The elected dog catcher?
Is Warren Buffet more important than the rest of us? Phil Spector?
Is Bill Gates more important than the Mayor?
Rhywun | May 10, 2007, 2:21pm | #
the average citizen is significantly less important to society as a whole than the society's leadersIrrelevant. The "leaders" mentioned in the article were all flagrantly abusing their power.
grylliade | May 10, 2007, 2:26pm | #
Of course, but the average citizen is significantly less important to society as a whole than the society's leaders.They're not our leaders. They're our servants. Unlike in a monarchy, we are not the subjects of the president, or of Congress, or of a state governor, or of a state legislature, or of any other body or person. In this republic, we are the sovereign power. The common citizens. We delegate some of our authority to the government so that they can fulfill their obligations better, but in the end they don't lead us. They execute their offices. The Queen-in-Council may lead Britain, through her chosen cabinet (in legal theory, at least); the president by no means leads the United States.
I know you're trolling. At least do a better job of it.
Dan T. | May 10, 2007, 2:26pm | #
If a Governer is more important than the rest of us, how about a Mayor? A water district council person? A cop? The elected dog catcher?I don't know about the dog catcher, but cops and elected officials such as mayors, governors, Congressmen, etc. certainly do have legal priviliges that regular citizens don't have.
Irrelevant. The "leaders" mentioned in the article were all flagrantly abusing their power.
Right, and I'm not suggesting that leaders should be free from the bounds of the law and I certainly agree that guys like Corzine have no right to ignore traffic rules that endanger others.
Highway | May 10, 2007, 2:31pm | #
How about this for cynical:The reason you don't see articles like this in the MSM is because they, just like most politicians, are power hungry. But their power devolves from their access to those who are otherwise powerful. Therefore, they can't speak out against the power and specialness of people like governors and mayors, because to do so limits their own perceived power.
Retaliation's a good reason, too, especially in combination.
Dan T. | May 10, 2007, 2:31pm | #
They're not our leaders. They're our servants. Unlike in a monarchy, we are not the subjects of the president, or of Congress, or of a state governor, or of a state legislature, or of any other body or person. In this republic, we are the sovereign power. The common citizens. We delegate some of our authority to the government so that they can fulfill their obligations better, but in the end they don't lead us. They execute their offices. The Queen-in-Council may lead Britain, through her chosen cabinet (in legal theory, at least); the president by no means leads the United States.No offense, but this is a really bizarre post. Just because we elect our leaders and don't allow any one person or group total authority doesn't mean they aren't leaders.
Simon9 | May 10, 2007, 2:38pm | #
The phrase "public servant" has been with us for awhile. They are paid salaries from us, the taxpayers. We "hire" them to make decisions and perform certain public services. And we grant them some leeways. But that opens the door for abuse of power. And flagrant hypocrisy. And I doubt anyone posting on this board disagrees that hypocrisy and abuse of power has occurred with these individuals under discussion.pgt | May 10, 2007, 2:45pm | #
TomWright: you reminded me of something I learned last year about New Jersey.All the one way toll bridges are free of toll for entering NJ, but they charge motorists driving out of the state.
Someone I know who is from New Jersey (and proud to be far from NJ) told me that makes eminent sense.
wsdave | May 10, 2007, 3:07pm | #
"I don't know about the dog catcher, but cops and elected officials such as mayors, governors, Congressmen, etc. certainly do have legal priviliges that regular citizens don't have."Priviliges, certainly. But you said that they are more important. I think you are wrong. Today's mayor is tomorrow's garbage collector, if the voters decide not to re-elect.
grylliade | May 10, 2007, 3:24pm | #
No offense, but this is a really bizarre post. Just because we elect our leaders and don't allow any one person or group total authority doesn't mean they aren't leaders.They don't lead; they administer. A large part of the problems with the imperial presidency comes because people think of the president as a leader, as telling us what to do in some sense. But he doesn't; he merely executes the laws enacted by Congress. (I'm talking about what is implied by our system of government, not by what actually happens; in reality, you're right that the president often ends up being a leader.)
To me, the government in a republic "leads" by going where the electorate tells them to go. They don't set the destination; they merely find a way to get there. At best, they're like the helmsman on board a ship. The captain is still the leader of the ship, and can punish the helmsman for doing the wrong thing. Or maybe the president is the ship's captain, and the electorate is the owner of the ship. If the president (or whomever) were the leader, we'd be the ship's crew.
Calling an elected official a "leader" implies that we're responsible to them for our actions. We're not; we're responsible to the law, of which the official is the representative. That means that a governor can't speed at his whim, as a "leader" could. The will of the people, as expressed in the law and limited by the rights of individuals, is what "leads" in a free republic. We have a government of laws, not of men, and no elected official should act like they're above the law because of their position.
R C Dean | May 10, 2007, 3:32pm | #
cops and elected officials such as mayors, governors, Congressmen, etc. certainly do have legal priviliges that regular citizens don't have.Such as what? The only one I can think of is that cops can carry weapons off duty. Any others?
And I mean real, black-letter privileges, not petty bullying dressed up as privilege.
Dan T. | May 10, 2007, 4:01pm | #
Priviliges, certainly. But you said that they are more important. I think you are wrong. Today's mayor is tomorrow's garbage collector, if the voters decide not to re-elect.Look at it this way - if Corzine wasn't governor, would anybody care about his auto accident?
MayorOmalleySuxs | May 10, 2007, 4:01pm | #
"I worry about sharing the road with [police], and then asks why [the police] feel entitled to tell [me]how to drive."Just today at lunch time I was heading north bound on Rt29 in Howard County, Maryland (55mph zone) doing 70mph and was passed by a Fairfax, VA cop like I was standing still. I am used to cops disregarding the speed limits, but what surprised me was the license plate was covered by one of those plastic shield that is suppose to keep the red-light/speed cameras from getting a good shot of the tag number.
wsdave | May 10, 2007, 5:00pm | #
Dan T.,"Look at it this way - if Corzine wasn't governor, would anybody care about his auto accident?"
So you're now saying that Paris Hilton is more important than the rest of us?
Evan! | May 10, 2007, 5:00pm | #
"Look at it this way - if Corzine wasn't governor, would anybody care about his auto accident?"No, but what does that prove? That our elected public servants are better-known than average joe sixpacks on the street? Wow. Good going, Dan.
More infamous doesn't mean more important.
meerdahl | May 10, 2007, 7:03pm | #
I'm surprised no one mentioned this, but he was clocked speeding on the way home from the hospital!Plus, if security were a concern, I would think it would be better just to take a regular looking car driving normally to the destination. But this is not about security, it is about privilege, and knowing that you'll not be ticketed like everyone else would because you have the power to end the career of any officer that does so.
nonluddite | May 10, 2007, 7:55pm | #
You really can't compare Corzine doing 90 in NJ and Richardson doing 100 in NM. For one thing, I believe the speed limit in New Mexico is 75 and in New Jersey it is 65. Also is the difference in population density--NJ crams 5 times as many people in 1/14 the space as NM...Ken Shultz | May 10, 2007, 9:01pm | #
"No offense, but this is a really bizarre post. Just because we elect our leaders and don't allow any one person or group total authority doesn't mean they aren't leaders."I dig the post. "The only people who have a right to complain are the people who don't vote." ...I understand what they mean by that.
I love this country. Sometimes I get all teary eyed just thinkin' about it. ...but just because some guy won an election, that gives him the right to make decisions about my life?
My reaction against the spreading democracy justification for occupying Iraq, the part that came from my gut, it had something to do with this too. Elections here in America don't bestow much in the way of legitimacy to my eye. ...so I have a hard time imagining Iraqis, under occupation, feeling any different.
Msietr Snitch! | May 10, 2007, 9:34pm | #
"I'm surprised no one mentioned this, but he was clocked speeding on the way home from the hospital!"Yes, after apologizing for speeding - he went speeding again. Incredible hypocrisy. I was surprised it was not mentioned in this thread (until meerdahl) as well.
Is it just me, or are most politicians with this fault of the democratic persuasion? And it seems when a conservative gets caught in similar situations, they at least apologise, if not resign. Then again, conservatives tend to think of government as a necessary but distasteful chore, not something to be celebrated in its own right.
anonymous coward | May 10, 2007, 10:35pm | #
I wasn't aware that laws applied to people or not based on their "importance."Where were you during 1998?
Your Majesty | May 10, 2007, 10:51pm | #
This problem is easily solved. When a public official commits a moving violation, his official driver is replaced for a month by a DUI repeat convict.I guarantee Corzine would wear his seat belt if his driver smelled like Jack Daniels.
The Wine Commonsewer | May 10, 2007, 11:13pm | #
Radley, I just love your stuff. That one was particularly well said.M | May 11, 2007, 12:12am | #
Drivers are responsible for the seatbelting of their passengers below the age of 16, I was told; above that age it's the passenger's own responsiblity/culpability.In the interest of truth-in-advertising, I vote for calling them "rulers" rather than "leaders".
Which hurts more, as it should.
Peach | May 11, 2007, 12:16am | #
-In 2003, The Washington Post reported that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson routinely ordered his driver to whip down public roads at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour--Press reports in 2004 revealed that Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's car had been clocked traveling over 100 miles per hour on nine separate occasions. Rendell subsequently admitted to giving his drivers permission to speed to get him to meetings, though he did promise to stop giving those instructions in the future.
All this "speeding around" is in black Suburban's I take it? Certainly glad they are all taking Global Warming as seriously as the high speed law-breaking!
Mike | May 11, 2007, 12:18am | #
This entire affair speaks of hypocrisy. How many of us have been ticketed for speeding when we were running late. And we without an entourage of handlers and assistants to make sure that we do get to places on time.I'm certain that we have all seen police, both state and local speeding up and down the highway! Surely they cannot all be heading toward emergencies. Many times they are just heading to their next speed trap.
Corzine was apparently going 70 in a 55 on his way home for emergency recuperation.
There oughta be a law...
James | May 11, 2007, 12:59am | #
Our politicians see the way the rulers in other countries behave, and wonder why they can't do the same same thingAmong several congressmen and other political operatives I encountered, a certain admiration for the long-ruling Mexican political class was discerned. Sometimes they would confuse us with members of the then long-ruling party (the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI) and would talk at length about how they were "given the royal treatment" in the ranches and yachts and other perks of the Mexican political class. "Your leaders sure know how to live it up," exclaimed one congressman approvingly. Others would marvel at how the ruling party could govern for so long despite their abuse and without voter reaction. "If I did one-tenth of what they got away with, I’d be dead meat at election time," mentioned another one.
James | May 11, 2007, 1:02am | #
This is NJ. You don't like it? Leave. You have permission to do so.For now.
One day soon, all America will be like New Jersey.
Dan T.:
"Of course the President or the Governor is more important than the average citizen."
Not to split hairs over the meaning of "more important", but ... to who? My children are approximately infinitely more important to me than the President, or the Governor of my state. And, I'd place the safety and well-being of any citizen yanked at random from a crowd (or from a maximum security prison, for that matter) over the safety of a statist bugger like, say, FDR. If someone has the power to do great evil, and uses it, are they more important than us?
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
"Of course the President or the Governor is more important than the average citizen."
Not to split hairs over the meaning of "more important", but ... to who? My children are approximately infinitely more important to me than the President, or the Governor of my state. And, I'd place the safety and well-being of any citizen yanked at random from a crowd (or from a maximum security prison, for that matter) over the safety of a statist bugger like, say, FDR. If someone has the power to do great evil, and uses it, are they more important than us?
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
"Trolling or sarcasm aside, DanT, the average citizen is way more important to his average family and friends than are any of the average people they elect to such important governmental orifices."
And Dan T.'s response: "Of course, but the average citizen is significantly less important to society as a whole than the society's leaders.
This should be obvious, even to those as full of irrational hatred of government found here."
Dan, do you actually know any politicians? Because I know dozens of them (from seven years working at our state legislature), and only a few were people I could stand to be in the same zip code with, and a couple were really evil. The scum rises to the top in politics. If we did away with all those buggers and ran things ourselves, almost all of us would be much better off. So how exactly do people who screw things up rank as more important than us?
If you were being sarcastic or trolling, and really don't believe any of what you wrote, my compliments on a fine job.
And Dan T.'s response: "Of course, but the average citizen is significantly less important to society as a whole than the society's leaders.
This should be obvious, even to those as full of irrational hatred of government found here."
Dan, do you actually know any politicians? Because I know dozens of them (from seven years working at our state legislature), and only a few were people I could stand to be in the same zip code with, and a couple were really evil. The scum rises to the top in politics. If we did away with all those buggers and ran things ourselves, almost all of us would be much better off. So how exactly do people who screw things up rank as more important than us?
If you were being sarcastic or trolling, and really don't believe any of what you wrote, my compliments on a fine job.
Chad | May 11, 2007, 6:42am | #
This article has a point, but it gets confused by our stupid speed limit laws, which are literally designed to be broken. Saying someone was clocked speeding is meaningless, as everyone but half-blind 80-year-old grandmas speed. Indeed, people tend to get frustrated at anyone NOT speeding. However, speeds of 90-100 mph are not safe or appropriate under any conditions.Yes, most of these politicians seem to be hypocritical jerks and should be voted out of office. But writing an article that conflates driving 77 mph in a 70 zone with driving 100 mph in a 65, or repeatedly running red lights with parking next to a fire hydrant (which can easily be done accidently, btw) is rather silly.
We have the technology to truly enforce speed limit laws now. They should all be upped 5-10 mph and then enforced electronically. 80 mph means 80 mph, not 81 or 82.
El-Visitador | May 11, 2007, 11:44am | #
Like two or three readers above, I think this article should have mentioned that Corzine ilegally sped on the way home back from the hospital.Here is the Instapundit reference, which links back to the NYT:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives2/004687.php
Roy Lofquist | May 11, 2007, 8:39pm | #
Dear Mr. Balko,I agree with you almost in toto. I disagree in re the president. There have been 18 assasination attempts on the 43 presidents. If I were a life insurance agent I'd rather write a policy on a flaming homosexual in a Montana saloon.
Regards,
Roy
Cush | May 11, 2007, 8:54pm | #
Penii travel frequently. Often they are oblivious to their erection. Consequences happen. Society pays its dues, albeit lamely.91 mph on the GSP is not an unheard of rate of travel. Flashing lights are used to warrant attention.
Tommy_Grand | May 12, 2007, 5:00am | #
Good article."speeds of 90-100 mph are not safe or appropriate under any conditions"
Disagee.
J Golden Rockwell | May 12, 2007, 2:18pm | #
Government officials -- either appointed (such as cops) or "Elect Officials" such as Corzine -- require and have powers which the average person doesn't. This is right, they have been hired on behalf of society, and to do their job, they need the right "tools" -- but only those tools which they are properly authorized.The fireman doesn't have the authority to break down your door unless there is a significant, present and proven danger . . .if he doesn't see the poison victim, he can't take the door, but once a cop arrives, police powers allow them to enter to search for a victim. But the cop can't run an IV, even when they find the patient. It's a division of authority.
When an official takes authority and powers which they don't need to do their job (and which are denied to the general public), that is WRONG.
The President needs his high-speed motorcade, for reasons elaborated above. A governor does NOT. For the Pres, it's legitimate, for the governor it isn't.
Two nights ago, there was a high-speed pursuit through my neighborhood, chasing a stolen car. The chase was terminated when the car got into an area with more traffic. When the cops let criminals get away because it's not safe to speed through traffic, why does a governor need to speed through traffic?
J Golden Rockwell | May 12, 2007, 2:41pm | #
Chad wrote:speeds of 90-100 mph are not safe or appropriate under any conditions.
Chad has obviously never been in a traffic accident in the middle of nowhere, waiting for help to arrive.
The western half of Interstate 80 in Utah is a stretch of highway running over 90 miles between towns. No paramedics, no fire trucks, a handful of highway patrol Crown Vics and that's all.
The posted limit is 75MPH. The road is laser-straight from Knolls (exit 40) to Wendover. Do you REALLY think that 90 MPH isn't "safe or appropriate under any conditions"? I've talked to troopers out there who say "Yeah, I do 90 out there, twice -- going up through 90 after getting the call and going down through 90 when I'm coming up to the accident!"
where it is
Peter Samuel | May 14, 2007, 10:01am | #
VIPs and others regularly barrel down the highways at 30mph or so over the posted speed limit, and usually they don't get in wrecks or nearly kill themselves. Sure, they are arrogant and hypocrites but is that newsworthy? Do we really expect them to be Mahatma Gandhis walking with or riding like common people?If barreling down the highways with a police escort is the worst thing they do with the power they have then I say: who cares?
Usually it's just annoying. Here it was nearly fatal and the reason was the negligence of the managers of the Garden State Parkway, not Corzine's high opinion of himself.
Let's have some facts amid this flurry of opinions.
Corzine was nearly killed because of two specific unsafe conditions on that stretch of the Garden State Parkway - no clear zone to the side and a dangerous guardrail.
A red car ahead tried to pull over for the approaching motorcade but where modern highway practice has a clear breakdown shoulder lane for safe deceleration the driver, a 20 year old going home from work in Atlantic City found himself heading into a collision with a mile marker sign pole, so he swerved back into the roadway. His swerve caused a following white pickup to swerve left also, and in swerving left the white pickup clipped the front of Gov Corzine's lights-flashing, siren-sounding SUV. Hit hard at the front right corner the governor's vehicle spun counterclockwise in the roadway causing the police-trooper driver to lose control and hit a guardrail in the median of the divided expressway. Guardrails are supposed to be a safety feature, but this was an obsolete design. Corzine's vehicle hit the guardrail at an end. The end was poorly anchored and sprung up spearing through the body of his vehicle and mangling his upper leg. The end of the guardrail lacked engineered buffering or attenuators which are commonplace on well maintained modern highways so Corzine's collision with the guardrail was very violent.
Sure beat up on Corzine for arrogance and all that. In a perfect world we'd have rulers who were humble and sincere. Meanwhile we can organize to have our highways managed for safety and efficiency by competitive businesses accountable for their performance in place of unaccountable monopoly government authorities. No private concessionaire would get away with a highway as dangerous as that stretch of the GSP.
unimportant | May 22, 2007, 2:31am | #
"Click It or Ticket It" laws deserve our active opposition. Get a spare seatbelt, dangle it outside you driver's side door, after first attaching your actual seatbelt properly, but covering its appearance with a jacket or sweater. You will be stopped. Will you be cited? Of course. Will a judge dismiss it? If not, then you'll finally know which judge not to re-elect. Police obtain overtime funding through the Nat.Hiway Traffic Safety Admin. They are not altruists who yearn for your safety. Such jack-booted law enforcement is fascist bullying that deserves to be thwarted. Your personal right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is your right. Politicians who pass laws contrary to that are supercilious enemies of the people.