Are We Anti-Police and Military?

The short answer is yes, but the full truth is much more complicated and not as harsh.

To get the bad out of the way, police and soldiers are pawns in a metaphoric chess game being played by politicians, and as these pawns they are often driven to hurt or kill people for either nationalistic reasons or to enforce laws against crimes that have no victim, always being paid by money taken under the threat of death. Often, when they die fighting to stop victimless crimes or for dominance and resources on someone else land they are then hailed as heroes, which is thorough bullshit. Stealing people’s money to wage a war against them and others doesn’t make them heroes, it makes the police and military criminal gang members of an even lower order than the ones the police themselves create by enforcing their laws. They are the very mechanism by which the very worst people, the manipulative sub human scum politicians, get their power. Without the pawn’s cooperation, people like Joseph Stalin and Slobodan Milosevic would never have been able to kill millions of people. The vast majority of evil perpetrated on man kind is via their instinctive urge to obey people claiming authority, and the delusion that it’s okay to harm innocent people because it’s for the greater good, even when it clearly isn’t for the good of anyone. This is a point that can’t be sugar coated, or the entire point is of non aggression based activism is missed. It’s their damned fault directly, with less but still some blame being pointed towards people who eagerly pay their taxes, vote and wave their flags.

The nicer side of this is that a great many current and retired police and military personnel have always had the best intentions and have always wanted to do the right thing, even if their moral compass has stayed mis-calibrated and keeps contradicting itself. If they learn the error of past mistakes and adjust their thinking either partially or in full towards morality as defined by the pure freedom we propose with the non aggression principle, we of course think that is a wonderful thing. Thoroughly statist people of all sorts who come over to being libertarians and anarchists will see support from us, and we will always welcome these folks to work with us.

It should be kept in mind that in a world with a partial or full voluntaryist utopia, you would still have collective defense forces with much the same positive aspects of what they have now, and few of the negatives, and indeed plenty of the very same people would be doing it. Instead of operating on stolen money, they would operate on voluntary funds that would be redirected towards better contractors if they misbehaved. Victimless crimes wouldn’t exist, and those claiming they did who used force to stop victimless actions would have force fairly used on them instead. The police type folks even if they had a different title would just like now have important work rushing to accident scenes, helping little old lady’s unlock their cars, stopping bank robbers, and any other noble cause. And the good soldiers of today would still find ready work with people paying for regional defense services. If you think people wouldn’t potentially do this, you should consider how consistently people vote for politicians to do these things in a far more abusive and inefficient manner, as well as how many people use supplemental security systems even when they already supposedly have the state to protect them.

The problem of course is that we aren’t living in an anarcho capitalist utopia, we are living in a nightmare with endless abuse and carnage. If you are a freedom minded current or former cop or soldier, or for that matter a federal agent who is trying to spy on us and is sufficiently able to pretend, you are welcome with us, but please, do not under any circumstance expect us to water down our message in order to protect your feelings if you can’t come to terms with your past and/or present and therefore don’t like our conclusions. Liberty activism doesn’t need to be mean, but it does need to be honest, and you should always expect a sincere and dedicated liberty activist to say exactly what he or she means.

Mitch

Voluntaryism is Like a Religion

The polar opposite of the non aggression principle AKA voluntaryism is violent authoritarianism. Violent authoritarianism typically manifests in one of 3 ways which often heavily overlap; governments, counter government businesses that will use violence such as drug cartels, and religions that believe they should use force against those who are against them to some specified extent even where those against them haven’t wronged anyone in their actions. Most of these have a very specific power structure that is perpetually fought over and has a central control at the top of its pyramid scheme. All share the trait of being protected and promoted by milking people’s collectivist instincts for all that they are worth.

As people who are completely dedicated to people doing whatever they want wherever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone elses private property rights, voluntaryists can be accurately defined as anti-authoritarian collectivists, because we are bound together only by their belief that we’re all equal and have equal authority over each other only to protect ourselves and other innocents from harm and theft. Critically, while there will be many collective efforts, there there is never an attempt by people who feel this way to create a central authority.

Functionally many question the non aggression principle’s capability to preserve and protect people in the same way that a government can. This is readily proven an invalid concern by the fact that very complex and evil religious and criminal gang operations exist worldwide that often do a better job of protecting people than governments do, without borders, and without taxes. Given the fact that non aggression principle followers can be counted on to band together, not consider borders legitimate, and see freedom with an urgent sense of fanaticism, the movement can be functionally seen as having the same powers as a religion, and it realistically is a religion that worships freedom. Unlike the authoritarian religions that mutilate genitals and kill or otherwise punish people for not obeying trivial, often idiotic rules, the single exclusive goal of the NAP is understanding and protecting individual rights, in turn creating wide spread peace and prosperity. There is no reason why this can’t spread in time in the same way as any conventional religious movement, and there is no reason at all why it can’t overcome the obstacles so many people falsely believe governments are mandatory for, especially given the fact that voters have consistently proved that the majority of people wish to take care of their fellow human beings and would do so without government guns in their face to force them.

Riddle me this…

Why in the hell would you put any weight behind a celebrity endorsement for president, whether they like the guy you like or not?

They are, after all, just people. Furthermore, however, they are people whose fortune and privilege puts them so far disillusioned from the average person that the issues that concern them are not likely to be the same issues that concern you. They don’t know how you live.

They are just strangers.

Would you choose a new baby formula just because Luigi who runs the deli uptown went on the news and said its fucking fantastic, in spite of the fact that your doctor has told you otherwise? Because that’s the equivalent of people ignoring facts at the behest of dumbass celebrities.

Oh, they have money, and people recognize them? Great. I still don’t give a shit what they think. And neither should you.

My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.

Box Theorem

Consider the following:

For any given Actionable Situation (Sa), the number of Available Options (Oa) is at least one more than the number of Perceived Options (Op)

For Sa, Oa ≥ Op+1

This may be impossible to prove, but I’ve yet to see it proven wrong. People right now have either a dangerously high level of apathy, or a dangerously high level of violently exclusive loyalty (ie. “You’re either with us or against us”).

The reality is that most of the time, the Perceived Options available are driven by those intentionally steering you toward one or the other to satisfy their own agendas. Polarization of an issue is required in order to ‘demonize’ the ‘other’ guy, and then when you get caught in the middle you’re forced to either choose the ‘demon’ or the ‘lesser of two evils’.

Anybody who speaks in absolutes with regard to free will is selling something.

It seems so obvious to me, to a point where I’m sad to have to explain it, but the situation is rare that the options you perceive are truly your only available courses of action.

Please think about this, discuss it, mention it to others. Don’t let anybody convince you that your opinions or thoughts on a matter are irrelevant, or that you only have two choices and they are their way or the ‘other way’. If you don’t agree with either option, don’t choose either option. Do what you morally believe is right, be your own person, and don’t let anyone else coerce you into going along with them out of desperation.

The correct choice isn’t always the easy choice, but if the easy choice isn’t the correct choice, then fuck you for making it. That is lazy and destructive, both to you and to anyone else involved.

Don’t get trapped in the box. Use your brain for what it is for. Do research. Think critically. Be an individual. You don’t have to do anything that is against your morals, ever.