In case you haven't noticed, I'm an anarchist. No, not one of those guys who runs around spraypainting circled "A"s on other peoples' property, smashing windows that don't belong to me, wearing black, and advocating socialism. No sir, I'm a REAL anarchist. I'm a man who believes that no man has the right to aggress upon another man.
I'm not alone here, I've got some pretty good company. Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ are a few notable anarchists. Note, when I say "Anarchist", I mean, a follower of the "Non-Aggression Principle". But what does not aggressing against another person have to do with a philosophy of not accepting a government? Well, it's quite simple...all governmental power is derived from aggression against someone.
At its basic level, we must understand what is necessary for government to operate. It cannot function without mandatory taxation, which is THEFT for any who do not consent to it. That is an aggression against property. Refuse to pay taxation? You're going to jail, which is an aggression against liberty. Resist jail using physical force? You're going to be dealt with violently, which is an aggression against life itself.
So there you have it...government, even at its most basic level, cannot exist without aggressing against life, liberty, and property of those subjected to it non-consensually. That's just dealing with taxation. Now look at laws geared toward dictating how people are allowed to act morally, financially, and physically...or, for that matter, laws dictating how one is required to act when speaking to a member of the "enforcer class".
Any law which carries a legally-binding penalty for non-compliance will ultimately result in death for anyone who resists the law to its intended end, provided that person is not captured alive and dealt with by the courts. Yes, even a minimum monetary fine for not wearing a seatbelt. If you refuse to wear a seatbelt, you'll be issued a ticket. If you refuse to pay the ticket, you'll have someone show up at your door and physically attempt to arrest you. If you resist arrest, you will be physically assaulted. If you resist assault with physical force, force will be escalated until you either succumb, or are killed.
Where am I going with all of this? Well, today, I read an article about the Republican Party of South Carolina's state-level leadership calling for the immediate resignation and/or other means of removal, of two members of the party's local-level leadership. This call was based solely upon their agreement with words expressed in an article "When Should You Shoot a Cop".
Yes, the title of that article is a bit shocking, and it was meant to be. It does, however, go forth and discuss basic logic.
A) The average person has an inalienable right to "X".
B) Often, law "Y" is written and passed, and infringes upon the inalienable right to "X".
C) The authority the enforcers of "Y" are granted, under color of law, is derived from document "Z" that recognizes inalienable right "X", and states that no agent enforcing "Y" may infringe upon "X".
D) If the enforcers of "Y" have no authority to infringe upon your right to "X", because such an authority is non-existent in "Z", then the enforcers of "Y" are in the wrong and would be assaulting you if they attempt to infringe upon your right to "X".
Now let's look at something here...a man wearing a badge has no more authority to infringe upon your right to speak your mind freely on a public street, than a convicted felon has the authority to rob you in a back alley in the middle of the night.
The difference? Well, if you were confronted by a man wearing a ski mask in an alley and he wielded a club and told you he was going to beat the shit out of you unless you handed him your money, the grand jury would laugh and high-five each other as they no-billed you for putting a 9mm slug through his face.
Now on the other hand, if you were confronted by a man wearing a badge on a street corner, and he's wielding a club and telling you that you're going to jail if you continue to speak your mind (and he's going to whip your ass if you resist being arrested), the grand jury would be begging the court system to fast-track you to the Huntsville death chamber if you put a 9mm slug through his face.
So please, for the love of Jodie Foster, can someone tell me the difference? I'll tell you what the difference is. If you're unarmed, the difference is about two minutes. That's about how long the cop is going to argue with you, before physically assaulting you for resisting his false authority...whereas with the thug in the alley, he's going to start beating your ass immediately. Either way, you're going to lose all of your money. The kicker is, unless you're carrying several hundred dollars in cash, you're going to lose LESS money when you get robbed by the thug in the alley.
What really bugs me about the police is not that they are protected agents of the state, which requires them to physically aggress upon my fellow man. It's the fact that they've been doing it for two hundred years in this country, to the point where people seem to think it's somehow okay...or that it's somehow "different" when they do it (as opposed to an ordinary criminal without a badge), or that it's even actually necessary for society to function!
I've always found my fellow Texans to be a strange breed, when it comes to their general unwavering support of the "Public Servant". The same people who rail against "government oppression" when "liberals" take office, bitch about how "oppressive" helmet laws are, etc. would have a conniption if someone were to get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and answer a request for "license and insurance" with a hollowpoint slug. These people also seem to be the most vocal opponents of gun control, for reasons I can't truly fathom. Maybe the 2A has something to do with shooting skeet?
Before I go further, I want to be upfront about something. I wish no harm upon anyone. I'm not a violent person, and I'm certainly not advocating violence upon cops based solely upon the fact that they happen to be cops. I grew up with about half a dozen of them locally, and there's a few that have been close to my family since before I was born.
That said, let's look at the modern world-wide history of homicide within the past hundred years. Obviously, battlefields had quite a bit to do with racking up that number. Then, there's religious fanaticism. So-called "terrorist acts" and "organized crime" add further still. Interestingly, these four categories are so inter-related it makes gathering statistics about it rather difficult.
Then we get into the biggest killer in modern history. Government-sponsored genocides. Hitler had about 9 million (that "six million" figure you hear about were just the Jewish folks he killed...it doesn't include the gypsies, cripples, retards, homos, etc). Stalin wiped out somewhere around 20-25 million. The Khmer Rouge took out somewhere between 1 and 3 million, depending on whose estimate you use.
Do you realize what is necessary to kill a million people using small arms? It takes a LOT of cooperation by people willing to serve the state, for various reasons. It may be fear, it may be financial compensation, it might be a genuine belief that he's doing the right thing, or it might even be the status one receives from the community when one wears a special insignia on his shirt.
Wow. That sounds a lot like many of the cops out there on the street right here in Texas. Do you know the difference between an SS officer dealing with the "Jewish Question", and a Texas cop telling someone he can't speak his mind on a public street corner?
IT'S ABOUT TWO MINUTES, IF THE GUY ON THE STREET CORNER PUTS UP ENOUGH OF A FIGHT...