Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Emotionalism Part 2- "Super-Love"

As I said in Part 1, I often see the irrational "super-hatred" aimed at "sex offenders", while the irrational "super-love" frequently goes to "law enforcement" and the military.  But this is just two sides of the same corroded coin, and is often due to people being "too close" to the issue.

I'll focus on the irrational "super-love" this time.

One thing that really bothers me are those libertarians who make excuses for the inexcusable.  Those who "super-love" the enforcers (and to a lesser degree, any government tool).  Maybe a loved one is a cop or in the military, or for some other reason a strong feeling of devotion is experienced toward these enforcers and hired killers.  Maybe they are under the belief that enforcers are "a vital necessity" to keep predators from hurting innocent people.  Sure, it's a delusion, but it can seem very "reasonable" to them.

Recently on facebook I made a comment that was not "respectful" of the FBI.  In the story someone said, of their consideration to join something like the FBI, that they wanted to "stop bad".  O---kay....

I responded:

"You want to 'stop bad'? Don't join a gang like the FBI. Refuse to attack innocent people and don't violate anyone's property rights. Not even if it's your 'job'. Don't support the evil and stupid 'war on politically incorrect drugs' which fuels so much of the aggression in America and beyond. And stand up to those who do- especially when they lie and tell you they are 'the good guys'. Don't be a part of the problem."

It seemed a common sense reply to what I assume was a sincere remark.  I see nothing in my comment that should be offensive to any honest and consistent person.  Or so I thought...

I was told, in a reply from a self-proclaimed libertarian (my "boss"), that:

"[N]ot every good guy is a bad guy. There are true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others, and it takes good cops at all levels to protect the public from that. Are there personal violations that police or other government officials cause, to people and/or their property? Of course, that is and always has been the case. But not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys. There are more bad or stupid policies, like drug control, that detract from freedoms. I agree with you that people have an individual right to make stupid choices."

My response to this comment was too short due to me responding from my Kindle, so I will expand it here.

FBI agents are not "good guys".  For several reasons.

First, they are among the "true bad guys out there who will kill or harm others"- if they restricted this killing and harming to people who were initiating force or stealing, then they would be provisional "good guys".  They don't.

Cops of any sort are NOT "protecting the public", they are the primary predators in society today.  And their actions and enforcement of those admittedly "bad and stupid policies" is the only thing that gives those bad and stupid policies the ability to harm anyone.  The actions those cops take protect the freelance predators from reaping the just consequences of their actions. This is even pretending there is such a thing as a "good cop".

And to claim that "not every one of the FBI or local police or bureaucrats are bad guys" is missing the truth.  The FBI is unconstitutional.  If you believe the Constitution is what gives the US government its legitimacy, then FBI agents are bad guys before they even enforce their first counterfeit "law", and in doing so either initiate force or steal.  And kidnap.  Their very existence is in direct violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution- where is a federal police force specifically authorized?  Nowhere.  If it isn't specifically authorized, it is illegal.  So every FBI employee is a criminal.  If you are not burdened by devotion to a constitution, then you don't even have to go that far to see that they are all bad- their initiation of force and their other enforcement of counterfeit "laws" is enough to show their wrongness regardless of their lack of Constitutional authority.  Even when occasional good comes from their actions.

A "good cop" would not keep his job for even one day.  The first counterfeit "law" he was caught not enforcing would be his last act as a cop.  You can not enforce these things and be a good guy.  Not even once.  There is no such thing as a good cop.  But there are some that are better and some that are worse.

As for the bureaucrats- name one bureaucrat who never violates the property rights of those who are forced to deal with his bureaucracy.  You can't violate property rights as part of your job and be a "good guy".  So if you are collecting fines, fees, selling licenses, writing up ordinances, dealing in permits, or any other bureaucratic "job", you are not a good guy.  Not in your "official capacity", anyway.  But, I admit, you may do some good on occasion- particularly by breaking the rules for the cause of liberty or to protect an innocent person from the unjust rules.  It would still be better to get an honest job.

If, as the commenter admitted, people have "an individual right to make stupid choices", then using violence and kidnapping to violate this right is evil.  Period.

Defending these guys is a very anti-libertarian thing to do.

I understand the desire to throw support behind something that at first glance sounds like it might be good for you, individually, or for "society".  (What I don't understand is the fear or helplessness that seems to be at the root of the belief that these thugs "protect" you.)  I understand the desire to look up to "authority", or someone you have been trained from birth to respect and revere.  It just really bothers me when libertarians ignore the principles of liberty because they have let their emotions get in the way.



  1. This is why I consider libertarians to be scum of the earth. These finger wagging poseurs will orate, pontificate and bloviate on the evils of law enforcement; they will protect, enable and encourage drug use...and they will be the loudest ones to cry the blues if they are hurt by druggies and there are no cops around to protect them. The piss and moan about laws brought in to protect children and will defend the swine that prey upon them. Don't tell me 'that's not what I mean' because that's what it is in the real world where people like you refuse to dwell.

    I like my society with a little morality and ethics, thank you very much. My rights are not violated one iota because you can't smoke dope, speed, or molest children, etc.

    Guys like you are the reason guys like me have guns.

  2. And guys like you, brave Mr.(?) Anonymous, are why I feel government schools are such an evil- literacy is much too important to leave in the hands of The State.

    You obviously wouldn't know ethics if someone made a Youtube video about it. Oh, wait... Not only that, but your apparent idea of "morality" is disgusting.

    I'm not defending aggressors; that's YOU. As long as they work for The State, apparently. What have you done- PERSONALLY- to defend innocent children from the child molesters of the TSA? Oh, wait, you have to depend on cops to defend you and yours, I suppose. Judging by the rest of your comment.

    I have never encouraged drug use, much less drug abuse- but I'm not so stupid or blind as to be unable to see that as bad as drug abuse can be, the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs is much worse. It kills more people, destroys more lives, and has a greater negative effect on society than all the drugs throughout history- combined- could ever have. It is the main jusitifcation behind most of the anti-gun "laws" that have been proposed for the past few decades. So, yeah, your rights have not been affected, but your liberty certainly has. Not that I expect you to understand the distinction.

    I have never been hurt, or even threatened, by a "druggie", and I can defend myself just fine if someday one wanted to hurt me. I don't need a badged goon looking out for my interest, and your assumption that I would want one around, to "protect" me, is insulting and idiotic. There is no situation so horrible that it can't be made much worse by adding a cop to the mix. You may have the misfortune of learning that firsthand someday. Then you'll remember you were warned and you'll wish you had listened to me. If you survive being "rescued" by your heroes, that is.

    Sickos like you don't care about anyone's liberty but your own. As long as you can do what YOU want, screw everyone else, and if some reaver murders them, "Good riddance!" And you call libertarians "scum"! LOL

    And bringing up speeding just shows how very desperate you are. Speed limits have nothing whatsoever to do with safety, and everything to do with control and stealing money for The State. But you go on believing what you want to believe.

    Fortunately, libertarians will stand up for your fundamental human right to be wrong- while we acknowledge the possibility that we may need to defend ourselves, violently, from your "morality" and "ethics" (Your American Sharia Law, to be blatantly honest about it). Your kind is not the only group with guns- but you're lucky; we don't go out starting trouble with vermin such as yourself.

    There is no need to pass or enforce a "law" before I will act to protect children from being abused. Why can't you man up without cops backing your worthless butt?

    There's a reason a high IQ disqualifies a person from being hired as a cop, you know.

    So, people like you have no need for guns against people like me- unless your plan is to attack libertarians. Then you might be disappointed by the outcome.

  3. Mr. Anonymous, if the state wasn't so busy proclaiming a monopoly on law enforcement, we would never feel any need to feel injured by criminals.