Be Careful What You Wish For

When Order Is Mistaken for Oppression

We didn’t ask for your politics.

We didn’t invite your message.

Yet there it was - stuffed under the wiper blades of our cars like an obligation we never agreed to. Not an argument. Not a conversation. Just a juvenile insult and the assumption that we would be curious enough to seek out a Facebook page.

It was crude, insulting, and clearly intended to provoke. What it actually did was reveal far more about the mindset behind it than about the institution it targeted.

Activism That Begins With Trespass

Placing anything on someone else’s vehicle is not expression - it is conduct. It is the use of private property without permission. It is forced contact. It assumes access to someone else’s space, attention, and time - without consent.  And it immediately undercuts the moral posture of the message itself.

When a movement pretends to claim opposition to the abuse of power while casually abusing their power by violating personal boundaries, the contradiction is self-evident.

Speech persuades.
Trespass irritates.

The Arrogance of Assumed Importance

The unspoken premise behind this tactic is simple and revealing: my opinion matters so much that strangers owe me their attention.

That is not confidence. It is beyond entitlement. It is narcissism.

People who believe in their ideas present them openly, accept disagreement, and stand behind their words. They do not rely on insults anonymously placed on private property and hope outrage will be a viable substitute for persuasion.

This is not courage.
It is drive-by provocation.

The Fantasy of a World Without Enforcement

Here is the question no one calling for abolition ever answers honestly:

Who will show up when the police don’t?

And a harder one:

Why am I so confident it won’t be someone far less restrained than the current system I despise?

Many of the loudest critics of law enforcement have never lived without it. Order is invisible to those who have always benefited from it.

So consider a simple thought experiment.

For 30 days:

• No police

• No courts

• No prosecutors

• No enforcement

Not reformed. Not reduced. Gone.

What fills that vacuum is not peace. It is power - uneven, immediate, and unaccountable.

Disputes are no longer resolved; they are settled.

Property is no longer protected; it is claimed.

Restraint disappears, and intimidation takes its place.

History is consistent on this point. When formal order disappears, informal order emerges, and it is enforced by whoever is strongest, most organized, and most willing to use force.

Who Actually Suffers When Order Disappears

Lawlessness does not distribute harm evenly. It never has. It never will.

So ask yourself - slowly and honestly:

When there are no police, no courts, and no consequences, what makes me believe I will be safe?

And more importantly:

What makes me think the people most eager to ignore boundaries now will suddenly respect them?

It is never the wealthy or well-connected who suffer first. It is:

• the naïve

• the loud

• the isolated

• the unprotected

• those who mistake restraint for weakness

The uncomfortable truth is this: many who romanticize a world without judicial enforcement would be among the first victims of the disorder they imagine as liberation.

Because in that world, there is no one to call.

No report to file. No charges. No case. No "law" violated!

No neutral authority to intervene.

There is only whoever shows up first - and whoever shows up stronger.

Necessary Systems Are Not Perfect Systems

Are abuses of authority real? Yes.
Should misconduct be punished? Absolutely.

But the belief that imperfection justifies elimination is childish.

Mature societies reform institutions; they do not pretend they can function without them. Enforcement, like gravity, does not require approval. It exists whether formally organized or informally imposed.

Police are not saints.
They are also not optional.

The Irony No One Wants to Admit

Here is the contradiction that cannot be avoided.

The same people who feel entitled to invade strangers’ personal space with unsolicited messages are often the loudest advocates for removing enforcement entirely.

They violate boundaries now - confident someone else will absorb the cost - and call it activism.

But remove police, courts, and consequences, and those same people lose the very shield that keeps their behavior performative instead of dangerous.

Lawlessness does not empower the outspoken.
It empowers the ruthless.

The people who benefit most from the absence of enforcement are not activists or idealists. They are predators, bullies, and opportunists - those already inclined to exploit the absence of rules.

What is framed as liberation is, in practice, a transfer of power - from imperfect public systems to entirely unaccountable private force.

The uncomfortable truth

Order is invisible when it works. That is precisely why it is easy to mock.

But remove it, and the silence is replaced with something much louder - and far less forgiving.

Most people will never have a meaningful interaction with police because most people do not violate the law. That quiet normalcy is not accidental. It is maintained.

Final Reality Check

If police and courts disappear, violations do not.
Only consequences do.

Before demanding a society without enforcement, it is worth understanding who fills the void - and who pays the price first.

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.