One of my favorite things about the movie Excalibur, an absolutely gorgeous telling of the King Arthur legend by John Boorman, is the utterly unapologetic bombast with which the actors deliver their lines. In an early scene, a young Arthur, squiring for his brother at a gathering of knights, pulls Excalibur from the stone in which his father lodged it years earlier. This sends the knights into a tizzy, with some proclaiming that Arthur drew the sword and is therefore King and others refusing to contemplate an un-knighted boy as their sovereign. In one exchange, the knights Uryens and Leondegrance (the latter played by Patrick Stewart, aka Captain Picard aka Professor X aka Sejanus) stand opposed. Uryens bellows “are you with us, or against us!” Leondegrance turns his head, then boldly proclaims “Against you!!”
This is, tragically, how people’s positions and opinions regarding the “choke hold” death of Eric Garner after his encounter with the NYPD have devolved in public discussion. Some side with Officer Daniel Pantaleo and police in general, and make the point that he was resisting arrest. Some side with Garner, and make the point that he died for the crime of selling untaxed cigarettes. Some, and I number myself among this group, believe that the situation is a tragic but foreseeable (and perhaps inevitable) result of the heavy taxation of cigarettes in NY.
I’ve heard arguments from all three camps, and there is at least some merit in all. Yes, Garner was breaking the law. Yes, police have a duty to enforce the law. Yes, he was resisting arrest. And, it seems likely to this outsider layman who wasn’t there that the chokehold was an excessive and inappropriate action. And, yes, I acknowledge that I wasn’t on the grand jury and that I haven’t seen all the evidence.
Underlying all of this is the fact that, had there been no profit in selling loosies, Eric Garner would not have been in a situation that led to police ending his life. Police would not have been in a situation where, in order to enforce revenue collection, they sought to arrest Eric Garner. I and many others have made this point, and I and many others have been rebutted with accusations that we are exonerating Officer Pantaleo or that we are exonerating Eric Garner. Such rebuttals are non-sequiturs. They don’t address the taxation argument and they presume beliefs that haven’t been voiced.
They also are typical examples of the devolution of debate down to the simplistic choosing sides. If you blame the cops, you’re absolving the victim. If you blame the victim, you’re absolving the cops. If you blame the system, you’re absolving everyone. It’s nonsense – there’s blame to be placed on most or all of the actors in this tragedy. Blame, however, isn’t what will reduce the likelihood of this sort of thing happening again. A Japanese proverb says Fix the problem, not the blame. That’s what we should be talking about.
Is the problem inadequate training of police or improper policies in terms of choke holds? Is the problem societal disrespect for the police and the law? Is the problem the opportunity for black market profit created by excessive and varying taxation? Yes, yes, and yes. It is possible to identify a problem without denying or acquitting other potential problems. No sides need be chosen, and all problems can be addressed.
The punch line for us libertarians is, of course, the assertion that excessive taxation is the problem that underlies the others. It’s a safe bet that this particular confrontation wouldn’t have happened if cigarettes weren’t taxed so heavily. There’s a lucrative black market in NY – 60% of cigarettes sold here are either smuggled from other states or pure counterfeits – and that black market exists solely because there’s money to be made by dodging the $5.85 per pack tax (state plus city). When a carton of cigarettes in NY costs over fifty dollars more than a carton in Virginia, there’s enormous incentive to do some driving. Do average citizens care much about this sort of thing, though, especially if it’s just some guy lining his pockets rather than a violent organized crime syndicate? It’s not evident that they do, just as it’s not evident that many care a whole lot if the street corner hot dog vendor doesn’t report all his cash sales to the tax authorities. Therein lies a source for the decreasing respect for the law that some blame for Garner’s refusal to obey the police. Make no mistake, Garner was wrong to resist, but if we are looking to address the problem rather than merely assign blame, we must consider how laws that don’t elicit public respect contribute to the attitude of people like him.
Devolving the Eric Garner case to a he’s a criminal vs cops are thugs accomplishes nothing positive and causes real harm. So does attempting to make it about race. Any of these identity politics stances, this tribalistic choosing sides, gets in the way of real and honest debate and analysis that is the only way to legitimately address the problems that led to this tragedy.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters