"I Do Not Consent To Being Searched"

Village Voice: NYers to NYPD: 'I Do Not Consent to Being Searched'

Reacting to the NYPD's announcement Thursday afternoon that police would randomly—but routinely—search the bags of commuters, one concerned New Yorker quickly created a way for civil libertarians to make their views black-and-white.

In a few outraged moments, local immigrant rights activist Tony Lu designed t-shirts bearing the text, "i do not consent to being searched." The minimalist protest-wear can be purchased here, in various styles and sizes.

Oh, the folly of it all.

Your consent doesn't matter that much these days, folks. I have not voted for anyone since the 2000 election and I do not voluntarily consent to the "representatives" who think they have the authority to speak in my name. Yet they do.

The last time I voted in a state ballot process was in 2003 Texas Constitutional Amendments and each vote was a vote for increased respect for consent and individual freedom, votes against state power. I don't vote on anything now because I don't want to lend my sanction to the democratic political process. I don't support the current system and won't lend my voice (however small) to legitimizing its outcome.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had announced the legally obvious—that New Yorkers are free to decline a search and "turn around and leave."

Of course, there's the rub. The appearance of consent is quite important to the state and its agents. In most cases (a percentage that shrinks yearly), one who has been targeted by law enforcement can refuse cooperation on the spot and deny consent to bodily and property searches. One can do this for quite some time...but if the cops are persistent enough and line up the paperwork appropriately, your lack of consent won't mean jack shit.

Court orders, warrants, statutory biases in favor of protecting law enforcement officers' lives, and "emergency scenarios" are all used to combat your consent. They can and they will overrule you. That fact is embodied best in the judge, who has broad authority to toss your whining ass in the slammer for "contempt of court."

It's embodied in any government agent who, in the name of his fucking title and who appointed him to it, will tell you to do something and if you refuse, you get fined, harassed, and could ultimately go to jail.

Government is the antithesis of consent. This is what makes the state different from all other forms of social organization, save the criminal gang. "Move elsewhere and renounce your citizenship!" someone might reply. They aren't aware that the State Department, through the Immigration and Nationality Act, tells you exactly how to renounce American citizenship. You can't just say it; you can't just write a letter. And note this with as much comprehension as you can muster:

...persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information).

I'd still be hunted down by the feds for my tax and military "obligations," obligations that I have never explicitly consented to nor will I ever. The one and only reason I pay taxes is because I don't want to face that violent clash where my consent means less than dogshit in the face of established and enforceable Law.

Tony Lu's shirt is something I may buy in the future because, conceptually, it is a powerful statement. It would publicly establish (to anyone who cares to pause and think about it) that I value individual liberty over all government concerns that allegedly establish a reason to ignore it. No, "national security" is not good enough. No, "the public good" is not good enough. No, "the needs of the needy" are not good enough. Right up in the face of the greatest public policy issue in recent memory, I would be asserting my unequivocal liberty to disagree and move on my way unmolested. The existence of terrorism does not mean other people have a claim on my life.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the shirt stands for anarchy. It is a stark declaration of self-ownership and liberty. If I can refuse consent for a cop to search me under any circumstances, I can refuse consent for a cop to search my property. If consent is what matters, then there is no justification for government. No one - white, black, male, female, Park Ranger, office worker, gang member, granny, IRS agent, or child - would have the right to invade my space. Because they don't have my consent.

However, the shirt won't stop a frightened cop from tasering me, whether I pose a threat or not. The cloth and the concept won't stop a black-robed appointee from balancing my freedom against the effectiveness of executive power, whether that power even complies with the limits imposed by the Constitution or not. Explaining what I hold to be true won't put an end to the licensing of our lives, it won't end the Austin smoking ban, it won't slow down Democrat and Republican attempts to use me as their property, and it won't return any of the thousands in taxes I've paid during my life. Free will isn't going to be overturned by an idea.

A steadfast individualist principle on a T-shirt won't abolish the initiation of force against non-aggressors. It won't divest government from our lives. It won't inject sanity into the culture.

Because most individuals in this society stopped honestly giving a shit about respecting individual consent a long time ago.

Via Drudge.

Posted by Drizzten at July 22, 2005 10:00 AM