Why do words like “snitch” and “narc” have distasteful connotations?
And why don’t we hold “tattle tales” and “stool pigeons” in high regard?
Is it because we think people should be able to do bad things and get away with it? Do we like misbehavior to go unpunished?
I think the answer to these last two questions is an emphatic NO. Close to 100 percent of people would want the authorities to know if any of us overheard a terrorist plot. Or somehow found out about a murder. Or knew about some dirtbag who had raped someone.
Yet we still don’t like “narcs” and “stool pigeons,” probably because we know that some rules are bad, misguided, or foolish. For all intents and purposes, most Americans have libertarian sensibilities about victimless crimes.
So while we approve of “tattle tales” if it means we catch genuine criminals who violate the rights of others, we look down on the “snitch” who rats out the guy smoking a joint, the jerk who informs the IRS on a small business owner hiding income, and the weasel who tells the local planning gestapo that someone is remodeling their basement without government approval.
I’ve previously shared nauseating stories about Soviet-style tax informant programs in both Chicago and the United Kingdom (where they’re actually encouraging kids to turn in their parents!).
The state of New York is engaging in the same reprehensible tactics, only this time the target is guns rather than money.
Here are some of the nauseating details from a story in the Daily Caller.
For more than a year, New York state has maintained a tip line allowing people to report illegal gun owners and collect a $500 reward. …A February 2012 press release from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office first publicly announced the tip line, saying it was designed to “encourage citizens to report illegal firearm possession.” …On the Facebook page for The Record’s story, several users criticized the tip line for apparently encouraging New Yorkers to spy on each other.
Of course, sometimes the government actually requires us to spy on each other, as is the case with money laundering laws that criminalize innocent behaviors in a costly, intrusive, and ineffective effort to reduce crime.
Not surprisingly, the government is defending this campaign to turn people into stool pigeons for illegitimate reasons.
…a spokesperson for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services defended the program. “This program has been in place for more than a year and is aimed only at getting illegal crime guns off the streets: a goal that every New Yorker can agree with,” wrote Janine Kava, director of public information at NYS DCJS.
What the government should be doing, needless to say, it getting people who do bad things off the street. And that means investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and punishing those who abridge the rights of other people.
It does not mean arbitrarily criminalizing inanimate objects such as guns.
And as this young lady says, the government should only get the guns of law-abiding people under very particular circumstances.
P.S. Andrew Cuomo also happens to be a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, where he infamously was in charge of imposing so-called affordable lending requirements that helped start the bad Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac policies that eventually led to the housing bubble and financial crisis.
[…] love to get people snitching on each other (see Andrew Cuomo, Richard Daley, and David Cameron), so this bit of satire is both amusing and […]
[…] nauseated by Judge Jenkins and his call for snitching. Makes me wonder if he’s related to Andrew Cuomo, Richard Daley, or David […]
[…] That applies to the solar factory mentioned in the article, and it also applies to other vote-buying schemes such as mass transit boondoggles, expanded rent control, and anti-gun snitch lines. […]
[…] life easier for tax-aholic politicians in states such as California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and New […]
[…] life easier for tax-aholic politicians in states such as California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and New […]
[…] highlight a specific bad policy. As you can imagine, states like California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey give me a never-ending amount of […]
[…] But we also get plenty of bad policy from other levels of government. I periodically focus on the foibles of states such as California, Illinois, and New York. […]
[…] But we also get plenty of bad policy from other levels of government. I periodically focus on the foibles of states such as California, Illinois, and New York. […]
[…] this snitch-on-your-neighbor scheme. And the governor of New York has related experience, though his police-state policy focused on guns rather than tax revenue. Let’s also not overlook the U.K. politicians who have a […]
[…] this snitch-on-your-neighbor scheme. And the governor of New York has related experience, though his police-state policy focused on guns rather than tax revenue. Let’s also not overlook the U.K. politicians who […]
[…] of snitches, tax authorities in both the state of New York and the city of Chicago have programs encouraging neighbors to rat our […]
[…] Despicable Police State Policies from Andrew Cuomo in New York | International Liberty. […]
Now entering the land of The Lives of Others.
Essentially, the government has created an environment where we are continuously breaking the law. Speeding laws is just one example. Yes, I admit- I speed, but I do not do it wrecklessly and I am very mindful of others on the road. I notice a lot of others speeding- therefore breaking the law- right along with me. So, that has had the effect of making us ignore all law breakers. I mean- who am I to turn another in when I am guilty myself? Problem there is that some of these laws are actually to protect from harmful activity. If we had a logical set of laws, it might be different.
I ask the standard question. What if we got to the point somewhere in our history where we had just enough laws in place for everything to work well, yet we still elected people whose only (assumed) job was to make more laws? I believe we reached that point, and are now on the other side of it. And yet, we still employ them to this end. Perhaps all governments should be like Texas- they only meet for short periods. The rest of their tenure is to answer to their consittuents’ requests and fight for their rights against improper enforcement of the law.