The myth of social progessivism

Social progressivism.  This is a concept many associate with as citizens and politicians organized for change.

A lot of people think this is a good thing.  "Who doesn't want bad situations to improve?" Is what they would ask us.

However, what social progressives do not talk about is how said change will occur.  We want to know who is deciding what must be changed and how.

Social progressivism in America is another name for socialism.  The modern progressive movement, historically ushered in by Teddy Roosevelt is an advocate of change enacted by government and determined by a few over the many.

In other countries with historical backgrounds of monarchies, dictatators, and communism, progressivism seems fine because they have little regard for individualism.  The individual exists to serve society.  Thus conformity with social "change" is not just expected, but demanded.

However, in America, ours is not a society of the many over the one.  Ours is a society where the one is not only protected, but empowered.

Our Constitution is written to guarantee that an individual's and a minorities rights cannot be easily voted away by a majority.

This is because our founding is predicated on the idea that we are a group of individuals engaged in voluntary association, each having natural rights that cannot be regulated, imposed or removed by other people.

Here, society exists because individuals agree to collaborate and be a society.  The individual does not exist at the whim or service of society.

Here, the individual has value because of our natural rights.  Society does not determine the value of the individual.

For social progressives, this means the change they want, no matter how well intentioned, cannot simply be imposed.

This is the main reason social progressives want to see the American Constitution as a fluid document rather than the bedrock that it is.

The more people understand that the Constitution is not easily editable and is indeed not meant to be changed simply for the sake of change, then the less influence these progressives will have on public policy and society in general.

Police depts, not police officers are the real problem

The population and the media are having a heyday complaining about rogue officers who are being jackass jack booted thugs.

Those police officers exist.  However, statistically speaking, they are a tiny minority of all police officers in general.

Most police officers believe themselves to be and are generally making an effort to be good people doing a necessary job, and they are.

Police departments on the other hand exist primarily for the purpose of protecting a city or town's property and financial interests.  After that, protecting residents and enforcing laws is in their purpose.

How do we know this to be true?  For decades, police departments have encouraged the public to be compliant victims.  To avoid confrontation and give the criminals what they demand and count on the police department to follow up and apprehend the criminals.

This does not work.  It embolden criminals because they know that most people will not defend themselves.

Far too many police departments not only encourage victim compliance, but actively oppose open and concealed carry licences.

Again, looking at the statistics of police departments across the nation, they know that they cannot be in a position to deter or early intervene in the vast majority of violent crimes.

They would have to have officers in the area at the time of each crime to prevent or interrupt it.  Given officer to resident population ratios, this is statistically impossible and they know it.

Police departments are authoritarian organizations by nature and with the exception of locally elected law enforcement such as county sheriffs, they are "hired guns" by the city.  Most if not all answer directly to the Mayor's office.

Remember,  your average Joe police officer is there with good intentions often thinking of themself as a "good guy".  However.  They are hired hands.  They must follow the directions they are given and enforce laws on the books or risk being fired themselves.

Morality is not their job.  Just because something is legal or illegal does not necessarily "right" or "wrong".  You cannot legislate morality and that is a cold, hard fact of life.  That means you cannot "enforce" morality either.  You can only enforce laws.

So, we have a few jackasses that are making other officers look bad, a 24 hour cycle news media that pushes the negative stuff 100 to 1 over "feel good" stories, police departments that put police officers in positions they simply should not be in, and those same police departments that actively encourage residents to be compliant victims and largely oppose self defense.

Now you know how we arrive at a place where addled brained whack jobs who probably should be on medication or locked up are getting the confidence to brazenly attack, en masse, the most un-defended places in our communities.

Don't attack individual officers (unless they are one of the few jackasses that abusing their position).  Demand civilian oversight of local police departments and anything else that minimizes the ability of police departments to create and maintain authoritarian regimes.