child pornography rather than on its producers, in order to deterrnthe trade. This, of course, is a transparent sophism.rnIn my view, there is every reason for the federal governmentrnto ban the import of child pornography into the United States,rnto ban interstate traffic in it, and to prohibit sending it throughrnthe mails, but the target of the law should be and originally wasrnsupposed to be those who produce it and distribute it for profit,rnas well as those who kidnap, trade in, or seduce children. Itrnis those individuals who cause the social evil of child pornography,rnnot casual consumers of it, let alone those who buy itrnonly because the federal government has enticed them intornbuying it, as Mr. Jacobson did, and if the producers are ordinarilyrnbeyond the reach of the law, it does not follow that lawabidingrncitizens like Jacobson should be targeted, persecuted,rnand ruined.rnThe Jacobson case is particularly important because in a wayrnit was a kind of prototype for the later cases of David Koreshrnand Randy Weaver, and it may reflect a deliberate strategy byrnwhich admittedly bizarre people are selected for persecution.rnFew people can be expected to rush to the defense of a religiousrncrackpot like Koresh, a white separatist like Weaver, or a pedophilernlike Jacobson when their rights are threatened, and conservativesrnin particular can be expected to overlook the proceduralrnirregularities in these cases if they disapprove of orrncondemn the substance of what the targets are doing, butrnonce these cases become precedents, citizens who are considerablyrnless bizarre in their personal habits and beliefs thanrnmany conservatives will be safe for the anarcho-tyrants to hit.rnIndeed, the entrapment and destruction of Keith Jacobsonrnis typical of anarcho-tyranny. Having passed a law that is virtuallyrnunenforceable against those it was ostensibly intended tornreach, government turns its efforts against those it was not intendedrnto punish, which means the law-abiding. If you cannotrnor will not punish the criminal, criminalize and punish the innocentrnand then boast of how you are being tough on crooks.rnThe same dynamic of anarcho-tyranny is evident in the notoriousrnasset seizure laws. There are a number of cases on recordrnof homeowners or owners of planes or boats who have lost theirrnproperty because small amounts of drugs, often nothing morernthan marijuana, were found in or on them, often because anrnemployee, guest, or family member, rather than the actualrnowner, had possession of the drug. These cases are bad enoughrnin themselves, but the most notorious, which has received virtuallyrnno attention in the national press as far as I know exceptrnfor a column by Paul Craig Roberts, concerns Donald Scott ofrnMalibu. Perhaps the case is better known in California than itrnis in the rest of the country, but Mr. Scott’s victimization byrnanarcho-tyranny caused him to pay an even higher price thanrnRandy Weaver or David Koresh or Keith Jacobson.rnMr. Scott was a millionaire who had inherited his fortunernand lived in a five million dollar estate in Malibu. One nightrnhe was awakened by the sound of his front door crashing in,rnand, evidently thinking his house was being invaded by robbers,rnhe got up, seized a gun, and went out to protect his life andrnhome. Actually, he was right; his home had been invaded byrnrobbers, in the form of a 30-man raiding party composed of LosrnAngeles Sheriff’s Office personnel, federal drug agents, and thernCalifornia National Guard. When Mr. Scott appeared with arngun in his hand, they shot him dead in his own home. Thernkillers claimed to have some reason to think that Mr. Scott’srnwife was using drugs, though apparently no drugs were everrnfound. They also happened to have in their files an appraisalrnof Mr. Scott’s estate and notes on the value of adjacent property,rnand one legal expert who has examined the case believesrnthe purpose of the whole raid was simply to seize private propertyrnfor the U.S. Treasury under federal assets seizure laws onrnthe fabricated pretext of drug use. The murderers of Mr.rnScott pled self-defense and were let off.rnAgain, as with federal child pornography statutes, therernshould be no problem with laws that include as punishment forrndrug dealing the confiscation of property or assets. But underrnsome of the asset seizure laws, property can be confiscatedrnprior to conviction and often with little attention to the actualrnor serious guilt of the property owner, and they are virtualrnbottomless pits by which law enforcement agencies can essentiallyrnsteal private property to bolster their own budgets. Asrnwith other anarcho-tyrannical measures, real drug dealers, whornoften contrive to hide their assets, are frequently not affected;rnthe law falls mainly on law-abiding citizens.rnYet probably the most common example of anarcho-tyrannyrnin practice are gun control laws, and as you know there isrnnow a concerted effort across the country to abolish private gunrnownership entirely. That goal used to be a kind of hiddenrnagenda of the gun control lobby, and every nutty gun controlrnmeasure that was introduced was accompanied by sneeringrndenials that it would go any further. But in recent years thernagenda has come out of the closet. Congressman Major Owensrnof New York actually introduced a constitutional amendmentrnlast year to repeal the Second Amendment, and before he didrnso, conservative columnist George Will had already endorsedrnits repeal; this is perhaps the first time in history that a congressmanrnhas proposed repealing part of the Bill of Rights. Mr.rnOwens says that the Second Amendment is “not needed” inrnthe United States today, and Mr. Will argues that what he callsrn”police saturation” will provide an adequate substitute for thernprivate security offered by guns. “Police saturation,” or as Mr.rnWill describes it, “a policeman on every corner,” is of course arneuphemism for a police state, and it is entirely characteristic ofrnMr. Will’s brand of Fascism Properly Understood.rnThe fact is that the police and the criminal justice systemrndo not offer protection, nor can they. We have too manyrnpolicemen in this country already; to go back to Raleigh for arnmoment, where the governor is so zealous about his oath tornprotect the citizens, I recall that when I happened to visit therncity some months ago, there had been a serious car accident inrnthe middle of the afternoon that tied up local traffic for hours.rnI rode by the site of the accident around eight o’clock thatrnnight, and even though there was no congestion at all, evenrnthough the vehicles involved had long since been removed andrnwhatever people were injured had long since been taken to thernhospital, there were five police vehicles and five policemen stillrnon the scene. It is not at all uncommon in this country to seernspeed traps, sobriety checks, etc., that take up the time of fivernor six or more policemen for several hours. In Washington, itrnis a regular feature of the morning rush hour from northern Virginiarnto see several local policemen wandering around in trafficrnin the middle of Route 395 just before you reach the 14thrnStreet Bridge for the purpose of pulling over drivers who wererndriving on the shoulders of the road. As long as the police canrnafford to assign personnel to these trivial functions or to suchrnperennial aggravations as parking enforcement at a time whenrnurban crime rates are higher than ever, there is no reason to talkrnabout the need for yet more policemen, nor is there any reasonrn16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn