Category Archives: Philosophy

Police Interaction Book

Preface – The King’s Men

The following words are an attempt to catalog my experiences with police, and frame them in such a way that makes it as clear as possible what my perspective was. From the very first time that a police officer pointed his sidearm at me to the very last, I’ve continuously known that the actions of both myself and the police officers I met would be difficult for many people to understand. I have known that I’ve never appeared really normal or average when others view my actions, but I have always felt that this was due to a fundamental misunderstanding of my premise.

However, this book is not truly about me. While I myself must frame the stories, since I (and my corroborating cameras) were actually there, the stories herein are about the individual police officers; the specific humans that occupy the uniforms of law enforcement; the minds within the machine. Perhaps I have my own biases, partially due to my own ego and drive to succeed, but I will include no added lies or falsifications to tell the story better for my perspective; I will only include the full picture of truth that I can, because the boring old truth still ends up being a sum of unbelievable experiences with a plethora of colorful people. I have shocked myself in what I’ve seen with my own eyes, and I hope that you might be able to withdraw the same knowledge that I have from my experiences.

While this book will be universally declared by angry critics to be completely anti-police, let me make it clear that this is not the case. Police are a necessary part of a peaceful society. Absolutely necessary. Not everyone in a society, certainly not a majority, are likely to be professionals at conflict resolution, confrontation de-escalation, and defense of the peaceful population at large; I think that every reader, and myself, will agree that this is ideally the ultimate role of police in society.

This is not how police actually are.

Police are trained not to resolve conflicts, but to investigate and cage possible offenders of an arbitrary edict sent down from the metaphorical king in Washington, DC or Lansing, Michigan or your local city hall. The king (the government: the state, and their courts) has offices nationwide, and indeed across the world. Though the exact nature of how that king comes to power is no longer a method as arbitrary as family lines or marriage, the collective edicts returned from the king(s) carry the threat of violent, life-threatening, physical force from the king’s men (police) if you dare defy such edict. It does not matter if you didn’t hurt anyone or if there is no complaining victim: the king’s men will put you in a cage if the king says so, end of story.

Police are not trained to deescalate confrontations, but to escalate them until they gain physical control. If a police officer wants to talk to you, and you are walking away from him (since you have the fundamental right to ignore any stranger on the street, regardless of their costume or certification from the king), since he thinks the king will grant him permission to do so, he will grab your arm to stop you. If you resist, he will either knock you to the ground with his body or his Taser. If you defend yourself from this clear aggression, the officer will murder you. If you submit to the torture, you will be chained, caged, and be told to remit a portion of your wealth to the king to leave said cage.

I once got pulled over for having a muddy license plate (the purpose of such plate being that the king may better identify and steal from his subjects), just a few minutes after being on a muddy dirt road. The only issue here is that the police want to be able to see the plate; its not like anyone was harmed in the making of this $60 traffic ticket. If I hadn’t paid that $60, the police would eventually send a SWAT team to put me in a cage, just because the police officer couldn’t read a piece of metal that I don’t even need on any practical or moral level; I only have it because the king demands his subjects have plates.

Police are trained not to defend the peaceful population at large, but to protect themselves at all costs, even if those costs are grossly immoral on their face. Not only do police officers often cause unnecessary physical harm to peaceful people in their efforts to enforce the king’s edicts, but they lie to protect each other in a dangerous Police vs Public mentality, all to put the king’s wrath upon some peaceful subject rather than themselves. Whom will the king believe: a peasant, or one of his own men? Even then, in the United States at least, the king has declared that his men aren’t even required to protect any specific subject from imminent harm happening in front of them, but to protect the community at large so that the king’s interests are not affected by unrest (Warren v. District of Columbia is an edict from the king that addresses this point).

By this point, you may be thinking that I am broadly generalizing police in an unfair way. This is at least partially correct. Each individual police officer is their own person; they each own themselves and control their own actions. This means that individual police officers are fully capable of ignoring the common trends described previously and being better custodians of the peace of their community than their peers. Many officers proactively attempt to be better than others, but they are a minority. Thanks to the nature of relying on a metaphorical king to rule society, the king’s men typically follow the training handed down to them, regardless of its ethicality or morality. I have met police officers that literally tell me, “I hate cops,” knowing full well the coercive, thug-like nature of the common police officer; this is the exception rather than the rule.

Different law enforcement agencies across the world have their own standard of what exactly is proper conduct for their officers. In many nations, the police are literally worse than the criminals on the streets, because the police are assured of having the king’s blessing in whatever corruption they choose. Another plethora of nations have police that are far more effective at maintaining a helpful relationship with the king’s subjects, to the point that the people look up to the police to one degree or another. Police in the United States fall into both of these two loose categories, usually varying wildly by geography and local politics. A sheriff’s deputy in rural Montana will almost always be a true community peacekeeper compared to the thugs that occupy NYPD costumes in New York City. Bigger populations are almost always an indicator of worse police, for a wide variety of economic and political reasons.

However, it CAN truly be said that all police are required to be immoral; it IS objectively true that all cops are bad. This may seem like an extremely overbroad statement that couldn’t possibly be justified, but the explanation is rather simple. Police are policy enforcers: its right there in the name. Alternatively, they are law enforcement officers; their job is to enforce ALL of the king’s edicts (laws), not protect anyone needing protection. While police can and do, of course, on occasion actually protect someone in dire need of protection, this is not in their job description. The institution of police is designed to enforce ALL the laws, ideally with the intention of making a safer community.

However, sometimes government makes laws for reasons that aren’t based in a concern for the public, but perhaps a concern for itself or whom it favors. There are bad laws in existence in every single jurisdiction that police patrol. Every single police jurisdiction in the world has laws against what natural plants you can choose to put in your body, as an easy example. Because you own yourself, and because you own your body, it is a violation of your self-ownership for the king to declare that you cannot do so. Putting a plant in your body is not inherently a violation of someone’s safety or freedom, and yet your safety and freedom is directly threatened by the king and the king’s men if you do so.

The inherent contradiction that all police encounter is that they are required to enforce these bad laws and put you in a cage if you do not comply. It doesn’t matter if it is manifestly evil to throw a peaceful plant smoker into a cage; the king requires his men to do so. Therefore, every police officer is constantly required to choose between doing their jobs properly or not enforce these unjust edicts from the king. If the police officer does not enforce an unjust law, they are not doing their jobs properly, and are therefore a bad cop. If the police officer enforces an unjust law, they are acting in a manifestly evil manner under the king’s direction, and are therefore a bad cop. There are NO good cops, because every single one is required to be in this dilemma.

Police, as you might imagine, nearly exclusively choose to enforce these unjust laws in manifestly evil manners. They have their own needs to fund theirs and their families’ best interests with income from the king, and they have little motivation to give up that financial security. To make matters worse, the training that police receive convinces them that their actions are perfectly moral; they are conditioned to accept that the unjust means justify the ineffective ends. It is a sad truth that all police are in this position where they must choose between financial security and being a moral peacekeeper; it is exponentially sadder that police choose to put themselves in that position by virtue of their voluntary choice of career.

At this point, you may be wondering precisely how I can show that all police are required to be immoral, yet simultaneously claim that we need police. The key difference here is that I advocate not for the monopolized enforcers of the king’s arbitrary edicts that we currently live with, but with peacekeepers skilled in conflict de-escalation, conflict resolution, and protection of those who ask for protection. Being forced to have “protection” from a thug class with the force of the entire king’s resources at their disposal is not freedom; any peaceful person being forced to subjugate themselves to something they do not ask for is tyranny. You as a liberated, peaceful person who just wants to live your life hassle-free have every right to protect yourself if you choose; you have no moral requirement to accept another’s protection. Just like a mafia demanding protection money from members of the community, the end result is a net loss for the peaceful community members. In the end, you are not paying for protection from the mafia, even if they actually provide it: you are paying to not get your ass kicked by the mafia.

People want police, or else they wouldn’t exist. It really is that simple, but a huge portion of peaceful people in the world believe that our current type of police is good enough. We can find a better way as a society; we can do without the king’s men and even the king himself. We need not settle for a thug enforcer class that operates under intimidation and coercion; we can have police that are not bound by edicts from a king. The king’s men are only out for the king, by definition, and the safety and liberty of we the people is secondary at best. The king’s men theoretically serve the citizenry by serving the king; why can’t the king’s men simply serve the citizenry directly, and simply cease to be men of the king?

Until we reach a critical mass of people realizing the coercive nature of their police, there are many things to be done. The massive quantity of personal paradigm shifts required to improve the status quo is a daunting task. What we can easily do, in our efforts to move to a more peaceful society, is educate both the police and citizenry of the concepts in the preceding paragraphs. This is my premise for this book. This book is designed to show not only efforts of myself to improve individual police officers directly in their respect for the liberties of the citizenry, but to more importantly show you how you can create the same positive changes for yourself and your community. Call this an autobiographical how-to guide on preserving your liberty in the face of growing unrest and tyranny in our world, starting with the boots on the ground that the king’s men are. Ideally, upon completing this book, you will have all the knowledge you need to make yourself exponentially harder to be victimized by the police, as well as learn distinctly effective methods for improving the police for the safety and liberty of the rest of your community.

If it pleases the crown, I invite you to read on.

—————————————————————-

If you find the preface to be a riveting exposition into the dozens of police interaction stories told, then please consider donating some crypto to help this project.

BTC: 16NhvUZL5x116e5ziSii1hNkjzqqKKhxyw
ETH: 0x438C2f88108c9951c7c2655aA89137Ff2cD8A302 (ERC-20 ready)

What is an Independent Police Auditor?

What is an Independent Police Auditor? The answer is actually quite simple. An Independent Police Auditor is just a mystery shopper for Law Enforcement. A mystery shopper, in case you didn’t know, is someone who is paid to audit, or randomly check in on, a business, service, product, or institution. The manager of a restaurant might hire a mystery shopper to audit the quality of his restaurants food and service. Like the restaurant, ‘we the people’, who are the true managers of our public servants, have a need to routinely audit public services to ensure that they are up to the quality standards that we deserve for what we pay through Taxation (extortion).

But why do police need to be audited? It is because they are a state monopoly. What is a monopoly? A monopoly is the exclusive control of a particular product or service. That is to say, a monopoly is a product or service for which you have no choice of competitor. Verizon Wireless is not a monopoly, because you can always go to AT&T. Your local road commission is a state monopoly, because there is only one road commission sanctioned by the state to maintain a certain stretch of road. Ford is not a monopoly, because one could always purchase a Chevy. Police are a monopoly, because the state only allows one local institution to be law enforcers.

What’s so bad about monopolies though? On their surface, nothing at all; they are merely products or services that people want, or else they wouldn’t exist. However, because monopolies (by their definition) lack any competition, they have no natural incentive to do a quality job. If Police Dept ABC does a shitty job at policing, and instead enforces unjust gun laws and shoots unarmed people routinely, thanks to the magic of government, there is no Police Dept XYZ to which you could call for policing instead. Our police know this, and because they know that you have no choice but to call NYPD if you are in NYC, they have no natural incentive to do an excellent job to keep you (the customer) happy. As well, because they know they have no competition, they have no incentive to be efficient and frugal with our stolen tax dollars. What if Police Dept ABC spends millions on equipment to subjugate peaceful citizens? It truly sucks, because tax dollars will continue to flood to Dept ABC if there is no Dept XYZ to compete.

Police Departments have incentive to do what politicians tell them to do, or else these police departments may actually lose funding from those politicians and programs they support. In addition, politicians typically only support certain policies or laws thanks to corporate and wealthy ‘donations’; any politician anywhere can be bought by someone. This means that not only do politicians get to choose what police enforce (thanks to suggestions from corporate sponsors), but they also can adversely affect funding to police departments who choose to NOT enforce unjust and immoral policies and laws.

Internal Affairs has no incentive to expose corrupt officers, because it makes their entire department, city, county, and even state look bad when even a mild case of ‘bad cop’ is properly exposed. No mayor, police chief, or sheriff wants to openly admit that they hired violent thugs and murderers by proxy. This is where we, Independent Police Auditors, come in. We have no particular biases about this officer or that department or this deputy or any of that; we simply want to add some artificial incentive for these monopolized law enforcers to do a quality job.

We Independent Police Auditors can prove that our actions directly improve the quality of service you receive from your public servants. In literally dozens of cities across Michigan, we have had experiences where someone was unjustly hassled by police, illegally detained, or unlawfully arrested many times. On recurring audits in those same cities at later dates, officers go out of their way to avoid hassling the auditors. In fact, after having an encounter with two auditors in July 2013 in which two men were illegally detained, every single roll call at the beginning of shift next day at that police department included a 15 minute lecture on the laws, so as to avoid such illegal detentions in the future. This particular dept passed their audit the next time, as is the case with literally dozens of other municipalities.

Are we trying to provoke the police? Not really. Simply filming a government facility is not inherently dangerous, or else Google wouldn’t be allowed to use Street View on government buildings. We prefer to be left alone, as that is the sign of a perfectly passed audit, which is a sign of quality services from our public servants. While a video captured by auditors of police harassment may make interesting viewing on YouTube for many, a perfectly boring audit with no police interaction is always the goal.

Why do we need to be armed and wear armor? Isn’t that excessive? Well, simply put, in the case of an extremely bad police department, one where the police are extremely corrupt and know nothing of the law or morality; they may be more likely to shoot us then and any other circumstance. Police are just human beings, like everyone else, and are capable of extreme violence at any moment, which we definitely need to protect ourselves from as auditors who may expose corrupt police. We obviously would prefer to not get into a gun fight, just as any police officers does not want such a thing, and the fact that we are armed usually deters a violent reaction from happening. Unarmed auditors have, in the past, been beaten on police department property on a day when security cameras didn’t work; police aren’t likely to try beating three men with sporting rifles.

We are peaceful people, encouraging accountability with our public servants, while purposely spreading a message of non-aggression and voluntaryism. Independent Police Auditors, like most people, just want to be left alone; we just do it for a living.

Is voting aggression yet?

Ironic, isn’t it? All the protests and complaints, people saying “well, he’s not MY president!”

And yet these people are the same ones to champion the merits of “Democracy“.

When a voluntaryist tells them that voting is aggression, they aren’t having it.
No, you need to do your part, its your civic duty, blah blah blah.

But now look what’s happening.

3a37429100000578-3922098-image-a-36_1478739525870

They want to say now that because they didn’t vote for him, he’s not their president. They want to protest until he is pulled out and replaced with their ruler of choice.

They don’t realize that then, they would be the aggressors. Then, those that wanted the ruler that was chosen would feel the same way. “She’s not MY president, I didn’t vote for her.”

That’s the contemptible thing about voting though, isn’t it? Someone will ALWAYS be oppressed. Someone will ALWAYS be subject to the will of a subset of the population with whom they do not agree, and forced to live in a way that they are not fond of.

Why can’t those who wish to follow Hillary follow her, and those who wish to follow Trump follow him, and those who wish to follow Johnson follow him, and most importantly those who wish to follow nothing but their own heart be free to do so, provided they aren’t preventing others from doing the same?

If you are one of these people protesting today, consider how you feel. Bottle it up. Remember it. The next time you hear someone tell you that voting is aggression, before you shoot them down, open that bottle and remember how it felt the day you were forced to follow this man who is ‘not your president’.

The Thin Blue Line in the Sand

You’ve seen this symbol making the rounds, haven’t you?

Do you know what it means?
No, no… what it actually means.

You are perpetuating the exact problem that lead to the circumstances that have now led you to believe that this sort of display is ‘necessary’.
I am referring, of course, to the pandemic of “Us vs. Them” mentality that is sweeping the nation as of late.

I will explain, by answering a series of questions:

1. What, in an ‘ideal’ world, should a police officer actually be?
2. What, in today’s world, is a police officer?
3. What is a line?

Firstly, we will address what a police officer should be in an ‘ideal’ world. I put ‘ideal’ in quotes because I understand that everyone’s idea of ‘ideal’ is different.

For the purposes of this discussion, ‘ideal’ means a world of completely voluntary human interaction where everyone experiences freedom and government is not grossly overstepping its bounds. In fact, for purposes of this discussion, lets say there is no traditional ‘government’ and that ‘police’ can refer to private persons dedicated to the protection of others from violent encroachment or any other non-voluntary human interactions.

This does a lot of the work in answering this first question for me, but to be even more clear, in this ‘ideal’ world, the job of a peace office would be simply to help prevent, or intervene to stop, the aggressor in situations where the aggressor is attempting to force another person into a non-voluntary interaction. This can be using physical violence, threat of violence, or some other form of coercion. What you’ll notice a distinct lack of in this scenario is any sort of responsibility to police victimless ‘crime’. Again, ‘crime’ in quotes here because a true crime cannot exist without a victim.

In this situation, it would be important for the person acting as a peace officer to also not overstep from preventing non-voluntary interaction to initiating their own non-voluntary interaction by force. This person would essentially need to be integrated into the community. They are one of us, jump into help where needed, and afterwards go back to being one of us. They are not an elite class of supervisors, rulers, parents, caretakers, or otherwise. They are just people, acting merely on the principle that forced interaction is wrong, and are only able to intervene at the level that you or a loved one would be able to intervene on your own behalf.

So what, then, has today’s police officer actually become?

In contrast to my above descriptions, police are tasked with enforcing many laws that outline ‘crimes’ that do not have victims. They are seen as stewards, chaperones, to ensure that we the people do what our parent, the state, wants us to and don’t step out of line.

Because these police are able to intervene into otherwise completely voluntary human interactions, it means that they essentially are being given ‘rights’ by the state that we the people do not have. How can a group of people [government] delegate rights that they as individuals do not have?

This puts police in a category of their own, between the state and the people. Their mentality becomes warped, as is human nature, and they start to view our non-police group as inferior.

For an in-depth study explaining what I mean, read up on the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Don’t let me lose you here, I’m not saying anything bad about your dad/cousin/sister/etc. who also happens to be a police officer, I’m merely talking about the corruption that has happened at an institutional level. Good as they as people may be, they are trained and ingrained to view the world as two groups: police, and non-police. Most cops would call these non-police ‘civilians’, without realizing that in my ‘ideal’ world above, they too would be civilians.

Once that mentality is instilled, they are trained that every ‘civilian’ is a potential ‘criminal’. They are trained to always be wary, to stick together no matter what, and to shoot first and ask questions later if at all.

“I’m going home tonight!” they exclaim.

This means that, as a police officer, they are trained to be on edge and anxious, afraid for their lives at every moment of every day that they are working. They become jumpy, and in the event that this leads [and it does] to an unjustified shooting, they are trained to cover up for one another, not only because they are told to but because they know that they experience the same anxious tension all the time, and that it could easily be them.

Yes, police should be held accountable when this happens, but also realize that a person getting into policing for ‘all the right reasons’ is systematically indoctrinated to feel this way, and that to some of them, they honestly believe they are risking their lives for the greater good in a world full of dangerous criminals and that there is danger at every turn.

We will ignore for today the contingent of sick fucks who recognize everything I’ve just said and join up literally because they enjoy to be violent bullies and wish to be legally immune from punishment. There are a few of these… you’ve seen them in the news, the ‘let me rape you or I’ll take you to jail’ guys, etc.

So already you can see how dangerous, divisive, and destructive the “Us Vs. Them” mentality is. That is without even talking about the other ways we the people are being divided and segregated into similar, albeit less ’empowered’ groups, a la BLM. Which brings us to this:

What is a line?

Put simply, a line is a divider. It separates one thing from another. One area from another. One shape, one region, one idea from another.

A line is a fence. A line is a wall. A line is a moat.

What is a thin blue line, then?

Some would argue that it is a line between the ‘criminals’ and the people, but it is not. It is a line between the people and the state, as defined above. It creates a clear divide, a separation. It makes a statement; Here on one side is us, the police, and there on the other side are you, the people. This sows the seeds of divisiveness and perpetuates the issues previously described.

By wearing this thin blue line, or sticking it to your vehicle, or displaying it on your social media page, you are literally making the problem you seek to solve worse. You are feeding the hand that bites you. You are the rape victim perpetuating rape culture.

“Of course I said no, but you know looking back on it, I was totally asking for it…”

There are ways to solve the problem, and segregation/group warfare/class warfare is not one of them.

It should not be a line, but more of a scatter plot. So I’ll leave you with a scatter plot.

scatterplot

Linens ≠ Liberty

A flag is a symbol.
A flag is not a person, or a group of people.
A flag is not freedom.
A flag is a symbol.
Symbols are representative, but symbols are also relative. They mean different things to different people.
This is important to understand.

To some, they believe a flag represents freedom, and the sacrifice that has been offered to secure that freedom.

To others, a flag represents oppression, and is the banner under which their freedoms disappear and their lives are controlled.

Either is reasonable, depending on your viewpoint.

The former is representative of all that has taken place to arrive at the point in which we currently exist. In other words, this is typically the viewpoint of a person who believes that a ‘flag’ represents a ‘country’, which is comprised of ‘people’ and ‘principles’ [such as freedom].

The latter is representative of a ‘government’, which seeks to control ‘people’ who live within a ‘country’, which is defined by the area which can be forceably controlled by aforementioned ‘government’. In other words, it is typically the viewpoint of a person who believes that a flag represents a ‘government’, which seeks to control the behavior of ‘people’, and that ‘people’ and ‘principles’ [such as freedom] can be valued, and celebrated, and striven and fought for, even or perhaps especially in the absence of a ‘government’.

The primary distinction between these two belief structures is, put simply, the presence of a distinction between ‘principles’ and ‘government’.

The former set of people do not see a distinction, and view any slight against one as an attack on the other.

The latter set of people, on the contrary, view the existence of these two entities as mutually exclusive.

Symbols mean different things to different people. This is important as we look at what is going on in the world around us.
Chastising people for their behavior towards a symbol is easy if you assume that the symbol means the same thing to them that it does to you. You take it personally. You think they’re direcly insulting your ‘principles’.

However, if you take a step back, given the above, and realize that to them, the symbol itself is a direct insult to their ‘principles’, you begin to understand their behavior.

It is more important still to realize that in this situation, you are both reacting strongly, against each other, because you each believe the other is standing against your ‘principles’, when in reality a mere misunderstanding about the meaning of a symbol has lead you to lose sight of the fact that you are, in fact, championing the SAME ‘principles’.

Now, to this Kaepernick guy.
I don’t care about sports, or this guy, any more than I care about anybody else I don’t know, except to say that I believe in Liberty for Everyone.

I will say this: addressing of grievances used to be encouraged. This is an example of a person in the latter group addressing their grievances, and refusing to align with a ‘symbol’ that, as defined above, is contradictory to the person’s ‘principles’.
This is not a slight against your ‘principles’. If you are offended, then it is merely because you disagree upon the meaning of the symbol chosen as the vessel for the message. The ‘principles’ being defended, even though you may disagree with the method, are likely the same ‘principles’ you hold dear yourself.

Don’t be so blind, dumb and hateful that you can’t take a step back and see the bigger picture, which, in short, is that the symbol is not the thing that needs defending. The ‘principles’ are. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you might find allies in unexpected places, and enemies in plain view.

Whatever The Market Will Bear

I am not complaining, in fact my life is working out just about exactly as I’d planned and the future looks quite good, but I am now living in the state with what last I checked are the second lowest wages in the nation, and I am no longer seeing auto repair as being worth the stress, bullshit from customers and expense of tooling, and I am therefore about to leave the field and likely never return apart from perhaps occasional side work and of course building and fixing my own toys. There simply is no reason to run myself into the ground when I can make the same or more money for considerably less effort and stress, that is just the common sense possessed by all living creatures.

Hard, annoying work demands a pay off, or people won’t do it. If they don’t do it, society suffers set backs. It’s a simple thing anyone should be able to understand. It’s hard to find good mechanics these days, and it’s east to see why. Expecting someone to have similar levels of skills and knowledge to a doctor and paying them a thoroughly laughable wage clearly is a failing strategy. People often use the term “whatever the market will bear”. One thing the market won’t be bearing is me using my many thousands of dollars worth of tools and many years of experience to fix your shit for chump change. (not that the customers pay chump change, just that mechanics get a chump change cut, especially in some regions) Not happening, at least not for long.

While the wage issue in the southwest is a result of arbitrary borders, a lack of much industry, fractional reserve lending as well as a few other abuses from the state, for me, this transition to the next phase of my life also puts in perspective how people who truly believe in socialism are hack jobs with no real world skills and no respect for themselves or anyone else, to the extent that not only do they not want to have to earn a living, they actually want a system of organized crime to use the threat of lethal force to steal things for them.

The idea that everyone will work hard and contribute their skills with no added or reduced pay for what they’re worth is the foundation of socialism. This thought process is not only blatantly illogical, it is also extremely dangerous.

So, to all you statist socialists out there, fuck you. Get a life. Go make something of yourself. Stop being whiny, sub human, genocide prone garbage.

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.