Leftists are endlessly concerned about the fact that laws have different effects on different groups of people.  It does not seem to have occurred to them that the logical alternatives are much worse.

On seeing the headline of New York Times' op-ed, "We Don't Need Another War on Terror," sub-titled "Prosecute the Capitol rioters.  But new antiterrorism laws could end up targeting people of color," a thought crossed my mind: because modern laws apply to (or, if you will, "target") all people, how can there be any laws at all if laws must avoid "targeting people of color"?  Given that America is a multi-racial nation, and all the laws apply to each one of us, including "people of color," the only way to avoid "targeting people of color" is to not have any laws at all.  Makes sense?

There is another solution: American could make laws apply to whites only, or have separate legal systems, one for the whites and another for the "people of color."  I think this was tried in South Africa, but the experiment — called "apartheid" — was abandoned, as was a similar arrangement in this nation's South.  Nazi Germany, with its genocidal race laws, is another example we would rather not think of.

So again, given that laws are apparently inherently discriminatory and that race laws haven't worked out well when tried, the only way not to "target people of color" with laws is to not have laws.  Indeed, that seems to be the direction in which Democrats are heading.

For example, we already hear calls to stop law enforcement ("de-fund the police!").  Not having laws to enforce will greatly facilitate this noble goal.  If the law cannot help "targeting people of color," let's have lawlessness.  Though to think of it, this system — also known as anarchy — has been practiced before too and, indeed, is still practiced in some of the most violent corners of the world.

When anarchy ends, as it inevitably does, it does so because a strong man emerges to take control of the endless violence.  This natural state, the law of the strong, is indeed colorblind.

And yet, peculiarly enough, "people of color" who live in nations under the law of the strong — for example, in South America, Africa, and Asia, where, in many countries, natural law or gang rule prevails — are not necessarily happy with it.  We know this because of the millions of asylum-seekers who flock to American borders and swarm American consulates trying to get in, to re-phrase Mark Twain, "legally when they must, illegally when they can."

Perhaps The New York Times should put its thinking cap on.  Yes, laws are made to be restrictive.  Yes, they do target all people, "people of color" included.  Yet this arrangement may still be much better than having no laws, or laws that treat different groups differently.  Both of those systems, after all, have been tried, so why champion what has spectacularly failed before?

Image: Peeking lady justice.  Public Domain clip art.