Monday, December 11, 2017

Delusional support for cops is EVERYWHERE

Most of my posts of the past few days have been inspired by my frustration over a discussion in a liberty-oriented forum. Where I am the only one apparently willing to admit there can be no such thing as a "good cop".

It's a little disappointing, I'll admit. I expected more.

I can give all the reasoning which leads inevitably to the only rational conclusion. Those who disagree with me give feelings, anecdotes, objections, and whatever else, but have nothing to contribute to make an actual argument to the contrary. They just engage in wishful thinking.

Which leads to one inevitable conclusion: People desperately want to believe cops are good. Even those who are otherwise "pro-liberty".

By pointing out the logical, inescapable reasons why cops can't be good, you threaten their beliefs. By pointing out that "cop" isn't a person so much as a set of behaviors which violate life, liberty, and property-- exactly in the same way "rapist" is-- you offend them.

Not only this, but in order to bolster their "argument" they put words in my mouth, they make assumptions about my motivations, and they leap to conclusions as to what I propose doing about the situation.

Why this childish attachment to a set of destructive behaviors and the gang members who commit them? Is something akin to an "archation culture" being exposed here?

I guess it's a pointless battle, even among the pro-liberty crowd. I'm still right, but I will walk away from the discussion. You can't get through to those who are so desperate to not understand.

Thank you for helping support

Follow me on Steemit


  1. Cops/military are criminals, instruments of violence.

    What is at the root of that violence? Constituency.

    No one(including/especially constituents) corrects the systematic violence problem. Systematic violence continues.

    Kill them all, let god sort them.

    ..then build Libertopia.

    How do you kill them all?

    Should they be sorted and systematically executed as to avoid killing innocent people? If so, how?

  2. " Even those who are otherwise "pro-liberty". "

    One of my personal peeves is someone claiming to be a Libertarian while acting counter-intuitive of such. being a member of the Libertarian Party or espouse Constitutionalism or any other thing that demonstrates their lack of understanding of what the core of Liberty is all about. It isn't so much personal as it is annoyance and frustration with the consequences their ignorance. They think it's 2+2=3.999999999999999999999 and people somewhere suffer for it.

    (One of the reasons I still visit this site is because you are a true Libertarian. You know the difference and are very consistent.)

    Government, in any form, is based on coercion with a threat of death/destruction. It is the key fundamental element of EVERY government, the very thing that defines it and distinguishes it as government.

    Libertarianism is based on the value of life and respect for inalienable rights. Coercion is a direct violation of rights. Therefore ALL forms of government are in DIRECT conflict with Libertarianism, hence why Libertarianism is really the "how?" of Anarchy.

    A lot of people claiming to be Libertarian miss this key fundamental point. And there is no gray area here. Either you are or you aren't. If you are it is because the core premise of your worldview is based on the value of life. If you aren't, it is because your worldview is based on the value of violence.

    People rationalize how violence is good for life because they are trying to value both. It's double-speak, kind of functioning as a hypnotic induction technique.

    If you are a true Libertarian, you see government for exactly what it is; A violent gang, a terrorist organization, extortionists and overlords to serfs. If you are a true Libertarian, you look at the constitution and think; "My rights are not dependent upon their reasons and magic words and papers"

    1. One thing I was thinking about this morning- and I may still turn it into a blog post- is that many people who are "pro-liberty" went through a "constitutionalist" phase along the way. I did, too. Maybe while in that phase, they developed an emotional attachment to police, and can't shake it. Of course, some are still stuck in that "constitutionalist" phase.

      The forum I'm speaking of is very heavy on the minarchists. It didn't surprise me that they can't accept that there is no such thing as a "good cop". What shocked me is that no one- not one person- stood up with me.

    2. I went through it, was ultimately just following the statist herd, and is how I truly know the difference now.

      I am not mad at people people who haven't yet awoken, but am nonetheless frustrated with the consequences of billions of people not getting it.

      Minarchists advocate 'limited tolerable coercion' or confuse anarchy with government, calling a voluntary tax system government. That's Libertarianism/Anarchy if it's voluntary.

      Maybe minarchists are Pseudo-statists, not really statist, but anarchists?

      I think there can be a such thing as a "good cop" if they are a privatized libertarian type of police force, but never a cop for the state.

      Hypothetically, say we created Libertopia. We're still going to need cops for a lot of services, things like directing traffic or patrolling for potential burglars or vandals, etc. They won't bust people for nonviolence like smoking a joint at the bus stop, but they will keep people safe from rapists and purse snatchers.

      Is it government? No, It's a security force, and because they do a good job, people WILLINGLY donate.

    3. Kent,

      Perhaps one of the areas that is difficult to reconcile, even among freedom loving people, is the difference between the theoretical purity of pure anarchy, which you espouse and the acceptance of attempting to reduce tyranny by measures steps, instead of ALL AT ONCE. Still having family memories of that terrible war of northern aggression, it was a time of murder, looting, burning and the complete chaos of people fighting both the state and their neighbors.

      I am perfectly willing to remove the shackles of tyranny (and educating the populace) over a period of time rather than a complete disruption of all out war, as commenter “kill them all, anonomous” seems to desire. It took 200 years to descend to this level and if we could return to a level of freedom in half that time, without another evil war, I would be thrilled.

      Perhaps it is this desire to return by measured steps to civility, without a disaster striking our country, that you misinterpret as the belief of a minarchist. I am perfectly agreeable to “individual personal responsibility” as MamaLiberty calls it, as the ultimate answer to statism. Perhaps even libertarianism or anarchy, depending on your definitions. I do not believe there is any other method acceptable as a final solution. However, if you insist that we immediately adopt the pure form of your ideal, I believe that chaos would indeed descend. Furthermore, I believe that the people who do hold minarchist or Constitutional values (not to mention other statists) would so greatly outnumber those of “pure thoughts” that the purists and the “kill them all” tyrants would almost immediately "disappear".

      I do not believe that all cops are evil, just as I do not believe that all bureaucrats who work for government are all evil. You and I once held different beliefs than we do now. We evolved and grew into this position, just as many who now work for the state, whether as enforcer or librarian can evolve, if we continue to educate them. Accusing them of “impure thoughts” is not educating them, it is alienating many.

      Many states now have constitutional carry or have redacted laws of control on the “pursuit of happiness”. This has happened through education and debate. This attitude needs to keep growing, in leaps and bounds. Isolating those who do not dream of an immediate and pure “anarchy”, is eliminating many who could later join our cause.

      Like you, I also have been disappointed by many in the Freedom movement. But I was disappointed by their lack of acceptance of any idea or concept that was not “pure” enough. I believe that removal of the rules of tyranny (mala prohibita) from our land would be a great benefit, both to freedom, to cops and to us all but many “pure” libertarians and anarchists found the idea repugnant, because cops would still be receiving “stolen money”. It wasn’t “pure enough” a solution, even though it would remove many of the shackles the state uses to enforce tyranny.

      Maybe we should all learn to fight tyranny every time it rears its ugly head and support any step towards freedom, even if it’s a small step. As long as the step is in the right direction (towards freedom), I will approve.

      Peace, Love and Brotherhood
      Through Equal Rights, Equal Firepower and Civility

    4. My "kill 'em all" mantra is only to be taken so seriously. The world at large insist on violent means of resolving everything,(when in doubt, kill large numbers of people), thus I am sort of mocking the violent nature of man by making my position on those terms, if to say, "Since the billions of statists insist, ...kill them all.."

      It also makes for good thought provocation. Controversy works - you're mentioning it, right?

      In reality, I cannot actually follow through with something like that because I value ethics and weigh it as part of the overall equation. The justifications that I my present or posit, however logical, are strictly utilitarian and not necessarily what I espouse and often about thought exercise.

      Cops are different. They get NO slack, none. Kill them all for real. Fuck cops.

      As for your presumed minarchist position; It compromises liberty, does not value life or rights in the same way. There is a certain standard or 'political sweet spot' that qualifies it as Libertarianism. Anything sub-par to that is something else.

      It takes a while to find that sweet spot, and must include a principled understanding. You know Kent gets it because he is consistent with those principles and standards.

      Your position is akin to tolerating a little shit on your sandwich, smeared across the toast like mayo, because it's not a whole turd sandwich. But it still tastes like shit and will continue to taste like shit. The only way to not have it taste like shit is to eat something else.

    5. Tahn,

      I just don't know how people will ever "get there" while excusing (and even embracing) the exact opposite.

      And, it's not that I care so much what people believe as I care what they do. When they work to strengthen the State and work to cut liberty off at the knees while claiming "liberty!"- as most minarchists/constitutionalists do- that's what bothers me.

      I just don't see liberty being increased by steps when people who claim to be on the side of liberty are actively pulling the other direction. It's those who are doing these sorts of things that I can't reconcile as being on the side of liberty, no matter what they claim.

      If people want a stronger State, even in just certain areas, how are they helping liberty? If they won't admit and recognize wrong when it is committed right under their noses while it's still relatively safe to do so, do you really think they'll have your back when it's dangerous to do so? When pointing out that a job can't give a person the right to murder or steal will likely result in being "disappeared" or a bullet to the skull? And how are those who excuse such things not helping push the State to that end?

      So, don't actively go out and oppose cops. But don't take their side, either. Don't call for "open borders", but don't beg the State to build a wall and enforce a 100 mile wide "rights free zone" to save you from immigrants.

      No, I don't say "kill them all", but I do say accept the reality of what they do. Hold them accountable and stop excusing them. Unless what they are doing is what you want done. And in that case, how can a person claim, honestly, to be promoting liberty?

    6. "No, I don't say "kill them all", but I do say accept the reality of what they do. Hold them accountable and stop excusing them."

      How do you hold a belligerent someone waving a gun in your face bossing you around, accountable? Because that is essentially what we're dealing with, only it is a belligerent army with papers and magic words and funny clothes waiving a gun in your face bossing you around.

      The belligerent part is the key to it. You can't hold it accountable as long as it has the guns. As long as it has the guns, you obey or else. It is not accountable for anything and you are, because it says so or else. It always boils down to the or else part. You have to address the or else part or it is arguably pointless.

    7. I don't say "kill them all", but in that case you most certainly have a right to kill that particular individual right then. That's what holding him accountable means in that encounter. You'll be murdered in revenge by his gang, of course. Any encounter with a cop is probably a no-win situation. You only get to choose the nature of your loss.

    8. In other words; slavery is a lesser evil than death.

      I see death as the lesser of the evils because it doesn't suffer slavery. Slavery is not worth not opposing, even if taking a chance on death. I see it as suffer or not, either by death or by victory. Thus my question is of how to win instead of A or B lose/lose.

      That means not getting stupid and getting killed, but maybe later annihilating the police station, or maybe selling the cop's/judge's daughters/granddaughters as restitution for a jail term or something.

      But in terms of an overall general view, how do you hold a system of violence and serfdom accountable when it always boils down to shut up and obey or else?

      Revolt? Revolution? Jefferson/tree of Liberty?

    9. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves. I don't have the answer.

    10. "selling the cop's/judge's daughters/granddaughters as restitution for a jail term" - Doesn't that go completely contrary to the NAP? The kid isn't responsible for their parent's evil. Taking it out on them would make the initial victim just as evil as the initial perpetrator.

    11. I see it like this;

      If I was arrested and jailed for a nonviolent act or falsely accused, and punished, etc., I am rightful in my demand of restitution by whomever responsible, which would be the pigs and judges, lawyers, accusers, etc who collectively violated me.

      Because their terms are as they are, it is fair game, on their terms, to claim their children and property as a source of restitution.

      I would charge a LOT for being violated, which basically means that I would own the judges and cops and lawyers and anything they produce, including their children/grandchildren.

      What is the average price for a pre-pubescent girl, a 17 year old healthy able-bodied male, an SUV, a luxury sedan, economy commuter car, a big screed HDTV, Sony home theater system, two ounces of gold jewelry, vintage comic books, and a revolutionary war era musket and a prized breed poodle?

      Is it more or less than the rate that I charge for being violated?

  3. where does one find such a liberty-oriented mostly minarchist online forum ??