Irreconcilable differences

We all do it. We tend to live in something of an echo chamber. Not necessarily by design, but naturally and inevitably, we associate more often with people who share at least some of our fundamental values than with those who don't. We avoid people whose views we find abhorrent. Famously, The Austin American Statesman claimed in 2004 that American communities are becomingly increasingly ideologically homogeneous, so that many people rarely run into differing viewpoints. Whether that's actually true on a geographical scale I can't say, but I think it's indisputable that most of us run with a crowd we find welcoming and agreeable.

And pretty soon, we start assuming that all decent people must be like our friends--how could it be otherwise?

In my case, while I'm friendly with people who nominally span the political spectrum, most of the people I know agree that there are too many laws and too many people enforcing those laws. Liberal, conservative or libertarian; Democrat, Republican or none-of-the-above, they may differ on exactly what constitutes excessive intrusion into our lives, but they share the opinion that we're overgoverned.

Which leaves me wondering how, if everybody is so damned sensible, how come laws continue to proliferate and enforcement of even the silliest rules is a growing employment opportunity for control freaks who can't satisfy their urge to bully in the private sector?

Then I read something like this by Sharon Srodin and have an a-ha moment:

I moved to Chestnut Hill from the New Jersey suburbs eight months ago. Some may say that's not much of a stretch - trading one nice, sheltered, upper-middle class enclave for another. It's ironic, however, that I've gained an appreciation for many of the things I used to complain about while living in New Jersey, such as overzealous traffic cops. Living here, I've noticed a distinct difference in the ways laws are both obeyed and enforced. Or to put it more accurately, not obeyed and never enforced....

All of our laws should be enforced across the board in every community. If those who are charged with enforcing the laws are indifferent, then it's no surprise that citizens are indifferent to obeying them. It's unfortunate that in some parts of "our" city that indifference takes a heavy toll.

All of our laws should be enforced? Huh. I don't remember agreeing to most of the laws on the books--in fact, I violently object to a good many of them, and I suspect that at least a few residents of Philadelphia (Ms. Srodin's new home) would agree--so I don't think we can fairly call them our laws.

As for enforcing all laws "across the board in every community" ... yikes. It doesn't take a lot of effort to dig up a listing of moronic legislation cluttering up the books in any locality. Enthusiastic enforcement of the full range of truly bad laws would require a lot more cops--and would trip up a lot more people.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the slack in the system--the failure to enforce many laws--that makes life in many places tolerable.

More important, though, is that I don't even know how to begin to bridge the gap between a Sharon Srodin and myself. How does a person who thinks we need fewer laws and less enforcement talk to somebody who seriously believes "the police commissioner, the politicians, and the community organizations are doing their best to make our city streets safer" and wants to turn every law on the books into a tripwire for the unsuspecting.

In a very real way, Ms. Srodin and I live in different worlds, and we want to live in worlds that are even more divergent than they already are. She, undoubtedly, lives her life amidst a circle of friends who agree with her that the world is a dangerously underregulated place; she'd find me and my crew as alien as I find her.

I don't think a difference like that can be reconciled. In the end, only one of us can be happy. It's my job to make sure that the happy one is me.