Though my post was of a specific incident, my "oppression" statement was really meant to be more general.
It's a culmination of government control as a whole not just the increase in police power/abuse.
The crazy taxation. The relentless bans without any need for justification. The increase in surveillance and citizen tracking. The draconian regulation and licensing. The blatant and open disregard for privacy and general freedom as long as it's in the name of "security".
And that is fair game. Interesting that so many decided to take such personal offense at my post offering a different perspective.
I get the general sentiment. Frankly, I share it at an emotional level. It is when I dig into the specifics that I find myself scratching my head. We can find some specific examples of increasing government control. But we also have to concede a lot of areas where government has less control or at least has chosen to exercise it less than it has at least in the recent past.
Our practical ability to carry firearms for self-defense without risk of jail time is a huge area.
Sexual and reproductive privacy is another, along with expanded definitions of what constitutes a marriage. Privacy laws and court rulings have always lagged technology, but in general it seems to me the courts are respecting privacy about as well as they ever have in terms of what is needed to search a cell phone, the conditions and limits of a warrantless search, etc.
Several other examples can also be had.
I wonder if the problem is not so much government being more oppressive, but that everyone is having something forced on them they find oppressive.
I doubt Clive Bundy took up arms because of police brutality in NY or NSA snooping. He was upset about a single issue: federal land policies in the Western US. Most folks east of Kanas don't have a clue of these but 60% of my State's land mass is under federal control rather than State, local, or private control. West of the Kansas/Colorado line this is the rule. I doubt anyone in Virginia or NY is upset by this. Many actively support keeping my State and other Western States in subjection this way.
But some are really upset by increased limits on elective abortion, just as some remain very upset about having to tolerate elective abortion at all.
Some are upset that their local laws and constitutions have been overturned in favor of forcing their State to recognize homosexual unions as "marriages." Many others will get more upset as "anti-discrimination" laws force men of faith to either close up shop, or to give public assent to such unions with wedding cakes, wedding photographs, renting of reception centers, etc.
A lot of us are upset about taxes to fund socialized medicine or inter-generational welfare.
Others are upset about "corporate welfare".
I think the nationalization of policies and laws is causing all of us to have something to be upset about even if in total, "oppression" isn't actually increasing. I think all of us are being subjected to some laws we find really disagreeable. Nationalization, or the elimination of federalism becomes the real problem, I think maybe, more than an increase in the total level of "oppression".
On the flip side, I suspect the quickest way to start all out warfare in this nation would not involve any police nor military brutality at all. Just stop delivering welfare checks and within about a week of them being overdue, we'd have massive riots, looting, and decent people would have no choice but to take up arms to defend themselves.
I also suspect that Mike Brown would have found it very oppressive to be arrested (no matter how gently or politely) for robbing that store (assuming he is the one in the security video).
The local Salt Lake media has been reporting on a shooting at a police officer. It can be read
at the Deseret News for free and without any registration. The accused looks to be a long time criminal and gang members whose crimes involve theft and burglary as well as car theft. These are real crimes against individuals, that have nothing to do with government oppression or needless bans. I doubt very much the suspect is shooting at cops over any legitimate sense of oppression, but is simply upset that he can't have his way with the weaker members of society.
There are criminals who reject any authority, reject any respect for others' rights. Such persons will naturally resent any authority or personification of authority that impedes them in their desires to rape, pillage, and plunder.
Gang banger types seem to love an eye for an eye or two eyes for one eye, where every insult or slight must be returned many fold.
In brief, I think we ought to give some real thought to what actually motivates various incidents.
I think it a shame that so many (Nationally) seem to have grabbed onto the police shooting of Mike Brown as their poster child for police abuse. A lot of us see a shooting that, while perhaps avoidable with better training or tactics, looks to be entirely justified. You've probably never heard of the death of Danielle Willard here in the SLC area. Flat out bad shoot by dirty cops.
The Salt Lake Tribune has several decent articles on it including the linked. Ultimately, the judge dismissed charges at the preliminary hearing. Miscarriage of justice as far as I'm concerned.
We have some problems to solve. But if we allow real criminals to make hay of legitimate problems we impede the ability to fix those problems.
Charles
