I’ve been writing for years about “hidden hand” operations that exist within government. No, not the Adam Smith invisible hand…something else. The self-interested sort.
In fact, in our Peoplenomics™ reports, we will often use a fictitious Directorate 153 – which we describe as a vestige of the Cold War – as a thinking tool.
It has proven itself a useful time and time again. Perhaps because it helps us remove certain “blinders” that most people run around wearing. You may not notice them, but they are there. They are concepts and beliefs that are not true and which limit your understand of how the real world works.
For example, say you own a piece of property, and in order to strictly comply with laws, you need to obtain a “permission” from some branch of government. If you want a zoning variance to build a carport close to your property line, but on your own property, you would likely need a zoning variance.
Zoning is especially fun to use because under Common Law, as long as your use of your own property (King of your own Castle) doesn’t interfere with surrounding castles, then everything should be good.
But that “surrounding castles” idea is where things beget messiness.
If your neighbor happens to be up the hill from your property, they could claim that their castle use (views from a window, say) would be interfered-with by your carport.
In a perfect world, there would be an even-handed application of law and the one best and fair result issued.
But often as not, the results are not fair or precedents evenly applied. That’s because of “factions” that exist – within government.
In zoning, you might have many – far beyond the so-called two party paradox. Two common divisions in zoning are pro-growth and pro-environment Since environmental activism runs hot (presently) decisions on zoning will tend to lean in this direction since. this “faction” has captured a lot of government.
Their tools have been votes, political campaign contributions, agendas, hugged trees, demonstrations, and in the most radical of examples, damage to private property. Yet, extreme environmentalism is not lumped with terrorism because it has has been working up to operating under “color of law” for the past 100-years.
And this brings us to this pair of important paragraphs in Wikipedia:
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the “color of law” authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the “color of law” does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.[3]
The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under “color of law”, it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.[4] Furthermore, in many states it is unlawful to falsely impersonate a police officer, a federal officer or employee, or any other public official or to use equipment used by law enforcement officers, such as flashing lights or a fake police badge. Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer.
And yet we see it all the time. The whole Civil Asset Forfeiture business is a fine example of government operating under “color of law.”
Does the Navy own the world’s oceans? No, but they operate under “color of law” in many cases. Same thing with the FAA: They don’t own the sky, but they regulate it – arguably under color of law.