OK reader, time for my monthly - and final - attempt to get my original point across within this framework, which I've failed to do in June, July, and August; I'm going to try a novel approach here in September, and instead of going on and on about topics like bridges, car culture, and ghost bikes I'm just going to state my point loud and clear in this first sentence - law and order politics is shameful bullshit (1).
The reason I kept trying to use those 'Sixes and Sevens' posts for the above idea was because I first had that thought on the bridge, which is of course where I also set the opening lines of the first post. It struck me then that in a country where people zip around on the roads at almost double the speed limit, the idea of being about 'law and order' is blinkered at best, and almost certainly total nonsense. Everyone knows the speed limit and everyone breaks the law; order remains. I understand the political sense of the expression - that in a sense it's code for stepping on the literal to reach higher ground - but what I'm getting at is simply a fact, or at least my observation, that we have order on the roads despite very little suggestion that speeding laws have any ongoing enforcement.
When I thought more about it, I realized that this fits a certain way of thinking about the relationship of the two concepts. A lazy thinker may initially link it to the chicken and egg framework - does the law create order or does order create law? - but I see the latter as the obvious answer; the laws merely record what's known to maintain order. Those who disagree with me would see it the other way - the law is enforced, with order the result. Like any duality, there are examples which support this opposing point - it's true that if I get pulled over for speeding, I stop speeding. But what happens if everyone is speeding? Well, everyone is, and it's not disorder, which implies something important about speeding laws and their relationship to order.
In this moment, when protesters around the country are making their voices heard on a nightly basis, understanding this law and order relationship feels more relevant than ever. Is the missing ingredient for restoring order a forceful reminder of law? Or should we consider that for a very long time we've had certain laws, which seem to exist only to excuse certain forms of murder, and that changing rather than enforcing these laws is a surer, safer, and more sustainable path to order? You'd think by now that we'd have learned to recognize disorder as the catalyst for changing laws; we have plenty to learn, and plenty more time to waste while others get caught up.
This might not sound so great; perhaps it disrupts your worldview. I'm happy to remind you that there are places on this planet where laws exist to enforce order. I will drive anyone who disagrees with me to the airport, and you can catch a flight to go see for yourself, but remember to bring your passport; you will not be on a domestic flight. Despite the frustrating pace, things do change in America; the tortoise will win in the long run. In the meantime, my offer stands for those who think slow is too fast, and prefer the status quo; I'm open to a lively discussion while I drive. Who knows, maybe I'll even learn something from you, like why some of our most consistently enforced laws - such as those against stealing - continue to be broken. Law, then order? You'd think by now we'd have tried a different approach, like maybe improving society such that any impulse or necessity to steal might be eliminated. But what do we know-it-alls know? It will be a long drive, with plenty of time for me to learn why I'm always wrong, once again; I can be convinced to break the speed limit.
Footnotes
1. Wow, that was easy....
I guess it's appropriate that I made this point in an unnecessarily long sentence.
