Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Aggression by proxy

Aggression by proxy

I was recently told of a situation that illustrates a few different points I try to make. I got this third-hand, so reality may differ significantly from how it was told to me. In any case, this is the situation as it was related to me:

Someone sold a section of land adjacent to their home. The buyer then set
up a meth lab in the middle of that property. When the previous owners
found out they called the cops. For whatever reason the cops did
nothing. Then the new owner came to the previous owner and threatened to
kill him for reporting him to the cops.

Now, once you sell a piece of property, as long as the buyer hasn't defaulted on the sale, what he is doing there is none of your business as long as he is not harming you. His meth lab, while you may not like it, is not an actual threat or harm. Unless you buy into the silly propaganda that it is some sort of "nuclear threat" that the "brave" drug warriors want to pretend it is in order to scare you into compliance with their "laws". So, in my opinion, in this case calling the LEOs was wrong, and a violation of the Zero Aggression Principle.

Plus, it didn't even "work" since the cops did not follow through with the desired act of aggression.

Actions have consequences. If you attempt to attack someone, in person or "by proxy"- by sending government against them, they have a right to use violence or the threat of violence in their own defense. Both against the agents of government, and against the person who uses government as a weapon against them. Just because in this case the weapon suffered a "misfire" doesn't alter the fact that a deadly weapon was aimed and the trigger was pulled.
Did the new owner of the property over-react? Possibly. Was the threat credible and immediate enough to warrant an act of self-defense? I'm not certain since I wasn't there. Is the accused meth manufacturer an otherwise delightful and honorable person? Probably not, since prohibition ensures that only people who are willing to take certain risks and use certain methods to protect themselves and their market will get into the business.

All I know for certain is that if this became a court case, the previous owners of the property would not want me sitting on a jury since I consider using government, in violation of the ZAP, a "wrong", and the mere production of governmentally-prohibited chemicals to be an ethically neutral act. As it stands now, I'd consider the two sides "even".

An Albuquerque woman talks about her abduction and how lucky she was that it ended when a LEO shot her kidnapper. Yes, she was lucky. A whole series of fortunate events had to occur for her to come out alive.

I hope she learned from this that she is responsible for her own safety and will never again allow herself to be helpless in the face of evil. Regardless of "laws" or "society's" expectations. When you realize you need a tool with which to defend yourself it is already too late. You can't always count on your attacker having a screwdriver within your reach or on someone else who has a proper self-defense tool showing up in time. Lucky last time; smart next time?