Judge Sends Amish Men to Jail Over Fines

Chris | InformationLiberation
Jan. 13, 2012

Every tiny government fine is ultimately backed up by the barrel of a gun. Refuse to pay and you will be thrown into a government cage, sufficiently resist and police will murder you over something as small as a ticket.

In this case, these Amish men are being jailed because they refused to pay a series of fines levied against them for not having orange triangle reflectors on the back of their horse-drawn buggies.

AP reports:
MAYFIELD, Ky. - A group of Amish men were sent to jail in western Kentucky Thursday for refusing to pay fines for breaking a state highway law that requires their horse-drawn buggies to be marked with orange reflective triangles.

The men have a religious objection to the bright orange signs, which they say are flashy and conflict with their pledge to live low-key and religious lives.

[...]"I totally understand your objection," the judge told Byler. "But you're in violation, and it's not up to me to change the law. It doesn't really matter what I think about any of this."
In fact, the judge could easily dismiss the case and throw it out if he so pleased, he chose not to.

See this quote from Albert Jay Nock:
Once, I remember, I ran across the case of a boy who had been sentenced to prison, a poor, scared little brat, who had intended something no worse than mischief, and it turned out to be a crime. The judge said he disliked to sentence the lad; it seemed the wrong thing to do; but the law left him no option. I was struck by this. The judge, then, was doing something as an official that he would not dream of doing as a man; and he could do it without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because he was acting as an official and not as a man. On this principle of action, it seemed to me that one could commit almost any kind of crime without getting into trouble with one's conscience.

Clearly, a great crime had been committed against this boy; yet nobody who had had a hand in it — the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the complaining witness, the policemen and jailers — felt any responsibility about it, because they were not acting as men, but as officials. Clearly, too, the public did not regard them as criminals, but rather as upright and conscientious men.

The idea came to me then, vaguely but unmistakably, that if the primary intention of government was not to abolish crime but merely to monopolize crime, no better device could be found for doing it than the inculcation of precisely this frame of mind in the officials and in the public; for the effect of this was to exempt both from any allegiance to those sanctions of humanity or decency which anyone of either class, acting as an individual, would have felt himself bound to respect — nay, would have wished to respect. This idea was vague at the moment, as I say, and I did not work it out for some years, but I think I never quite lost track of it from that time.
- "Anarchist's Progress" in The American Mercury (1927); § III : To Abolish Crime or to Monopolize It?













All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0



About - Privacy Policy