Eric Garner was selling cigarettes without a tax stamp. New York police challenged him. Garner debated them with his hands up. The cops jumped him. One officer choked him, while another sat on his chest. Garner told the cops he couldn’t breathe eleven times before losing consciousness. The coroner ruled Eric Garner’s death a homicide. But no one was indicted. The cops said they were just doing their job. Indeed…
Murder is the logical end of every statist policy.
You must use violence to enforce legislation, both the good and the bad.
- Good legislation uses force in a defensive way, to prosecute those who harm others. This is morally permissible.
- Bad legislation initiates force to impose things on innocent people against their will. This is criminal.
Statists must decide what to do about people who resist their schemes.
How far will the statist go? What if threats or imprisonment aren’t enough? More importantly, what if a person resists arrest?
- If the statist is unwilling to kill the person who resists, then legislation that initiates force is inherently unenforceable.
- But if the statist is willing to kill the person who resists (and most are), then murder is inherent in every state policy that threatens to initiate force.
You cannot limit initiated force to good uses. Initiated force is inherently bad, inherently evil.
Excellent! Simple and clearly explained. My problem is I cannot understand why everyone does not get it. I know, patience, patience.
This is what our statist friends fail to realize. A law exists as an excuse for the State to use force. Laws are not suggested best practices or magical objects that once passed fix behavior and civilization. They are a license to use deadly force.
Government is force. The force should be used to protect and defend not push agendas and further theft as a necessary part of civilization. Lasting change comes when people voluntarily work together and never at the end of a gun.
For many ‘statist’ integrated in and throughout from the president, congress to the federal and state governments – especially at the local level were ‘homeschool rules’ it’s just business, all about employment and career choices – maintaining the status quo most “everyone does get and understands it” like the elephant in the room yet their statist policies cannot appear to be enforced without murder.
For an example Federal Block Grants to States: Michigan Analysis, “Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants…” and integrated in regards to the family breakdown by and through Title IV-D the gateway to social hell.
BUT people will Never work together. To me, that is a form of utopia, which has not, and cannot exist
Thanks for your comment “KeepYourPower.” Most of the world has been built by people working together. But let’s assume you’re correct about this being impossible. How then can you fix the problem of people not working together by giving some of those people vast power over all the rest? It’s a contradiction.
You are mixing ‘working together’ or charity, with wrongful ‘power’ or coercion. Just as the founders promoted trading with all – but alliances with none. The first principle of the common law is to harm no one.
Hi Bob. You say that I am mixing “working togther” or charity with wrongful power. I don’t know where I did that. It’s certainly not my intention.
Why did you capitalize “Never”?
Of course people will work together. Working together is guaranteed, provided such is mutually beneficial and phenomena such as spontaneous order are well documented. The more correct statement is “people will always work together.” Not all people, but some people, and that’s the important caveat and why a one-size-fits-all model (modern states) cannot work and are morally, ethically, and economically flawed.
Excellent Mental Lever & Leveraged Thinking – great comments too!
The purpose of all government and or Law is suppose to be to ‘protect and maintain individual rights’. Instead the local government’s courts are revenue courts, people paying (enforcement tax); allegedly to keep the doors open-just in case a murder comes to town – it’s just business.
But now we all know about CAFR truth.
Louis L’Amour describes it best in ‘The Man Called Noon’
“Age-old struggle for freedom and for civilization which is one that always must be fought for; The weak, and those unwilling to make the struggle, soon resign their liberties for protection of powerful men or paid armies; they begin by being protected, they end by being subjected. You cannot submit to evil without allowing evil to grow. Each time the good are defeated, or each time they yield, they only cause the forces of evil to grow stronger greed feeds greed, and crime grows with success. Our giving up what is ours merely to escape trouble would only create greater trouble for someone else.”
I watched the History Channel pilot for Slab City (https://vimeo.com/69912480). It is worth watching. Note the number of sociopathic individuals. So many think they are doing right, but it is only for themselves individually. They may say they fit in and are doing things for the common good, but it is easy to see the selfish motivations that tend to blind them to the truth.
In that, we see the microcosm of the problems in society; forget the state. Bringing in the state only makes it worse. On that we most all can agree.
However, it does not have to be the state that causes murder to those it does not like. It only has to be a group of like-minded people. After all, the state is something that exists because of some peoples’ personal beliefs and/or sociopathic motivations.
The people in Slab City are ignorant of the warped thinking they have toward others. Any group or association of any sort that does not understand that we are all our brother’s keeper is doomed.
The question of what to do, if based upon other Mental Levers, is basically to roll over and die. Those that can will, and those that cannot can either fight or become passive, which puts them at the mercy of the oppressor. Strong enough oppressors will cause death to even the pacifist who will not lower their morals to agree to the demands of the other.
It appears that society must have a Saviour. Interesting, isn’t it.
Hi Michael Kitchen. Thanks for your comments. Your conclusions at the end suggest that you think we advocate pacifism. Not true. This Mental Lever explains — https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/mental-lever/zero-aggression-not-pacifism/
I disagree that you must be willing to kill a resistor in order to enforce a law. Humans are easily incapacitated without inflicting death.
So cops should stop carrying firearms and be prohibited from using chokeholds, right?
But your comment is really missing the greater point (or proving it). Law enforcement must be willing to apply coercive violence to resistors, regardless of the morality of their behavior. When they do, they will be backed-up by the law. Disagree all you wish. But the evidence for this view is overwhelmingly in the opposite direction from your assertion.
What if they were trained to do differently?
I think the real issue is one of a lack of consequences. Since this nation was founded, up until not so long ago, police had no additional powers or immunities beyond what any citizen had in making arrests or attempting to right a wrong such as recover property or defend against bodily harm. Even today, citizens (non-police) can make an arrest. The caveat is, they better be right about the perp’s guilt, because if they are not, they are liable for any harm caused, including causes of action like kidnapping or battery. It used to be the same for police. In fact, in our nation’s history, resisting a false arrest was a cherished notion and if you were indeed innocent of the crime, woe be to the police officer attempting to arrest you for it. You were expected and within your rights to resist, employing violence if necessary. And when that was the case, guess what? The police were rarely wrong because if they were there were consequences. Today, police, unlike the citizenry, enjoy almost absolute immunity for their actions and are granted a wide array of special powers, ostensibly to help them do their job. The result is, quite predictably, police as a whole no longer competently protect or serve the people, but rather endanger and harass. They have no liability for being wrong (i.e., incompetent), and the people cannot even resist when a victim of a crime perpetrated by police. At least not without putting their lives in grave danger.
The solution seems very clear: return to the days when police had no special powers or immunities. Treat them just like everyone else when it comes to rights violations.
I do not think that would work. It is based upon the premise that the police use the correct methods in general. If they are based upon the use of deadly force, then there is no improvement one way or the other. We are trying to eliminate deadly force.
The proper method is to capture without risk of death or maiming to either side. With the vast explosion of technological advancement, there is absolutely no excuse for not finding a way to incapacitate the suspect without deadly force.
We may need to up the voltage of stun guns for those who are larger and stronger. (“Set phasers to stun level 2”). Those who resist take the risk upon themselves. It is as simple as that. If they didn’t want to get into that situation, they should have run away sooner. Simple but true.
We see it over and over again. Instead of backing down from the resisting suspect, we see the police advancing and getting into the problems they cannot handle, such as is exemplified by the pictures on this page.
A better picture would have been the police backing up and drawing stun guns at a safe distance from the perp. When perps see that happen, it will begin to put the fear of God into them, and they may stop and reconsider the idea of resistance to the commands given.
We need to change our methods and tools.
Maybe so, but there are so many laws restricting freedoms that the Founding Fathers would have rightly declared unConstitutional, that we should consider repealing them. For real crimes, (such as threatening someone’s life, limb or other’s personal property) you have a point. When it comes to unjust laws,(and the pseudo-crimes they perpetuate) however, we citizens have not only the right, but the duty to resist. That is the whole point of peaceful civil disobedience, as practiced by Martin Luther King Jr. Corrie Ten Boom and others. When the laws of a country become unjust, moral people have a duty to conscience to honor conscience and moral principle above the law. This is a time honored principle that honors those who honor it.
I agree that many- although not all cops see themselves as a law unto themselves and it is more ego than public service motivating them and it would be well to train them in strategies to deescalate violence, BUT, if a law is indeed a good guide for societal order, what recourse, should reasoning fail? Just let them folks go? Order has a way of collapsing when basic rules of human behavior are not followed. I think only about 10% or less of people are just out right bad, or evil (unfortunately, many of these are in positions of power), but how about the rest of us who willfully submit to basic order such as thou shall not kill (murder) steal, etc? Difficult questions.
“Law and order” is a statist oxymoron. The law is enforced without respect for reason, rights, or choice, e.g., as when an immoral/irrational law is defended by LEOs with the mindless chant, “The law is the law”.
Therefore, law creates disorder, discontent, civil disobedience, and war. This is social suicide and possibly species extinction.
Order is not submitted to, it is created by reason, e.g., rights and choice. And order is essential to social cooperation.
Law is based on the initiation of violence, authority, not reason. The two are incompatible. The law requires the repudiation of rules of conduct, as all violence does. The law is all against all, war, chaos.
Rules requires reason, agreement, respect, civility, choice, sovereignty for each of us.
Wrong word in your icon. “Breath” is a noun. “Breathe” is a verb.