Thursday, January 08, 2015

Properly identifying dangers

There are many libertarians out there absolutely bending over backwards to seem all touchy-feely and warm & fuzzy. Do what you want, but ignoring reality so you can coddle bad guys and not alienate their fans isn't being honest.

Case in point:

I get the newsletter, and a recent issue was decrying the killing of those NYPD officers. Fair enough, but then they went off the edge.

What the article said was:

"...Humans have an evolutionary tendency to lump things with a common trait together and then assume that all those things sharing that trait are identical in nature. If a tiger killed my neighbor, then all tigers are deadly. If a snake bit my neighbor and he died, then all snakes are dangerous. Those that recognized distinctive traits and properly categorized the natural world as dangerous or not dangerous and killed the dangerous ones tended to live longer and pass on their genes. Those that thought we should just give all tigers a chance, well, it didn’t work out so well for them... 
But this vestige of our evolutionary past, like the appendix, serves no purpose today except in extreme situations (e.g. it’s still safe to assume all tigers in the wild are dangerous)..."

That's true, to a point. The mistake they make is in not properly identifying cops as just as dangerous as other known dangers- like wild tigers and poisonous snakes. You can learn to identify deadly snakes by their patterns, colors, and shape. Same with people who make the conscious choice to wear certain patterns, colors, and shapes. When someone chooses to advertise their identity as a predator you'd be foolish to discount the warning. They are warning you. Believe them.

I replied to their email:

The problem with giving cops a chance is, just like the tigers, by definition they are dangerous. They choose to live by theft and aggression- and advertise their choice every morning by the gang colors they openly put on to wear, and by continuing to enforce counterfeit rules against everyone not in their gang. If someone shows you that they are dangerous by the gang colors they wear and the choices they continue to make, you'd better believe them. It isn't "lumping", it is recognizing them for what they are and how they choose to live.
Now, I don't advocate going up to cops (or MS-13 gang members) who are not currently engaging in aggression or theft and shooting them in the head- but I will never grieve when the poor and harmful choices they have made (and continue to make) have consequences. Good riddance to them.
Not recognizing a real danger, just so you can appear "reasonable" to those who will never be on your side regardless, is suicidal.



  1. I also get frustrated with this point of view. Do folks with this viewpoint feel the same way about mafia hit men involved in organized crime (meaning the civilian kind)? Do they weep when THEY die?
    Cops are just hit men for a different mafia (the state) except they wear goofy clown suits, are more likely to kill innocent people, and work for a different crime master.
    Why the sympathy and consideration for them?

  2. Actually, Rogue, so-called "mafia" can only exist and prosper when consensual products and services are prohibited by the real "mafia" -- psychopaths organized into and hiding under the abstraction of "government". The "drug war" alone has given rise to the most vicious gangs in history. The number of tortuous murders and dis-memberships attributed to that "war" is uncountable, and could be ended tomorrow if the psychopaths would merely cease and desist from their "war'.

  3. But that's not in the nature of psychopathic and/or sociopathic behavior. All government agents fall into that category if they continue to carry out their occupational roll after they've come to "see the light". My goal is to help them see that light. Gently. Inoffensively, if possible. Hard to convince somebody after you've insulted her.

    I, too, am frustrated by what is being called "belt-line libertarianism". I give no personal quarter to those who choose to be agents of state, and who claim to have "jurisdiction" over me and/or those I love.

  4. On the other hand, I must not expend precious emotional energy flailing away at institutions I have no control over whatsoever. Yesterday was my grandson-in-law's 34th birthday (I have 3 grandsons-in-law). I called, visited with my 8 year-old great granddaughter, then wished her Dad congratulations and commiserated with his having to face sub-zero temps and howling north winds as he headed out to do his shift with the state highway patrol. I have no control over his behavior or choice of career. Same with my oldest daughter (I have 3 girls, 4 boys -- all over 40) who is about to retire from a lucrative state job.

  5. I can urge my family members, neighbors and friends to abstain from beans. That's a start -- an absolutely essential and most important start. I can also urge them to abstain from "voluntary compliance" with state agents. That must be approached more delicately, since many iron-fisted anarchists are absolutely fearful to simply avoid submitting ("filing" ha ha) confessions ("returns" ha ha ha) to the beast. And, indeed, if one shouts too loudly on that topic s/he risks being locked into one of the white man's rape cages. Can't go up against the white man too effectively if you're locked in one of his cages. Although I have an advantage -- I'm over 80 (with hide the texture of whang leather). The white man recognizes I don't have a whole lot to "lose", so he concentrates on younger, more tender meat. Sam

    (Apologize for the multiple posts to get my lengthy comment across. If I expound too long the site gives me an indecipherable error message that I finally came to understand as meaning I have to divide the long-winded missive up. Or shut up. My choice)