Pamela Konchinsky was pulled over by the police, questioned, and told to remove a bumper sticker from her car. The bumper sticker, “Unmarked Police Car”. The Indianapolis police argue that criminals might mistake the car for an unmarked police car and shoot the driver. Or at least that’s what they told Konchinsky after they pulled her over.

It’s an interesting case for a couple of reasons but there is one thing that really stands out in my mind. It seems to me that the police rationalized to themselves that the bumper sticker represented a real threat to Konchinsky and justified the entire incident because they were protecting her. The reality is they didn’t like the bumper sticker and their minds came up with a good reason to pull her over. I honestly don’t think the police officers in this case concocted the rather ridiculous argument, I strongly think they believe what they are saying.

It’s quite clear to me that the bumper sticker is designed as a joke. It’s rather subtle and funny at that. Some people are arguing she was falsely presenting herself as a police officer but I don’t think this can be construed as such. I wrote a blog quite a while ago about someone who was rightfully kicked out of Universal Studios for wearing a t-shirt that read: Police Street Crime Unit. That’s an instance of someone wearing something that could be misconstrued. In that case it wasn’t the person wearing the shirt who was in danger but others at the park who might look to that person for security. Not the point here but you can read that post to see my views.

Back to what I find so compelling about this particular case and why it speaks to Libertarian ideology. One of the things Libertarians argue is that the government has convinced both itself and those who support it that they do what they do for our benefit. I absolutely think there are times when the government is extremely useful but more and more I see in our politicians the same psychological mind-games we see from the officers in this case.

The bumper sticker is clearly a joke. An unmarked police car would not be marked as a police car. The officers in this case didn’t like what they saw and came up with a reason to get rid of it. They were wrong to do so and I hope Konchinsky gets her day in court. Likely it will be settled with an apology or two and that’s fine.

We want things so badly we twist facts around and around until we get the result we want. It happens to everyone. It happens to police officers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, and even web-developers! It’s really important for people in position of authority to be aware of this sort of thinking.

Be wary of those who claim they are looking out for you and try then try to take something away; be it freedom or just a bumper sticker.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

There’s a relatively interesting little case roiling the internet these days about a young woman named Amanda Longacre who won the Delaware Miss America Pageant but had her title stripped when it was determined she would turn 25 before the end of the 2014 calendar year. The pageant has a rule that all contestants must be under 25 by the end of the year in which they win their title.

Longacre has caught the attention of the national media and garnered a lot of sympathy for her cause. She’s planning on looking at legal remedies to her situation.

Her claim rests on the idea that she didn’t falsify her entrance form. It clearly stated her age and yet she was allowed to compete in the pageant. She argues that because the mistake was on the part of the Miss America panel to let her illegally into the contest they should allow her victory to stand.

This seems to me to be a rather ridiculous legal argument but I’m not a lawyer. It’s basically saying the police made a mistake and allowed me to get away with committing a crime but when they realized the situation came back and enforced the law. Certainly the pageant never should have allowed her to enter. I suspect she knew the rule all along and just hoped no one would notice the violation. Even if she wasn’t aware of the age limit it’s not an excuse to say that they didn’t notice my violation immediately therefore it doesn’t actually break the rules.

There have been a number of cases in the golfing world recently where a golfer’s violation was not noticed at the time of the infraction but was spotted later by a viewer on television. The violation is then enforced. It’s the rule regardless of when someone notices that someone broke it.

Let’s take the case a bit further just for the sake of argument. Let’s pretend no one noticed until after Longacre competed in the Miss America Pageant. Let’s imagine she won that pageant and served out her year as reigning Miss America. Would the pageant be wrong to strip her of the title retroactively? I don’t think so. We again have numerous examples in the sporting world of someone whose violations came to light after the fact, Lance Armstrong being a prime example.

Longacre is an attractive and charismatic young woman and this means she is generating sympathy for her cause. Certainly the Miss America Pageant might decide to reinstate her to generate good publicity and that would be within their right although certainly unfair to all the young women who didn’t enter because they understood the age restriction and honored it.

Rules are rules and when one person follows them and is defeated by someone who didn’t there is a problem. I don’t think it’s that big a deal either way but I do think the pageant should stick by their rules and their ruling. What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books