NYC Police Show No Respect for Authority

Police in New York City apparently have no respect for “legitimate” authority, as there has been a 94% drop in traffic and parking tickets issued, since Mayor De Blasio showed some support for protests against police brutality.

The police officers were even classy enough to use one of the slain NYC police officer‘s funeral as a platform for protest, turning their backs on the Mayor as he delivered a eulogy.

“Just no respect for the mayor. Nothing else to say,” one officer commented. And seeing as this man has no respect for authority, I assume he just wants to break the law. This officer must wish there was no mayor so that he could break the rules the mayor’s office currently sets for police officers. If the officer simply followed the rules, he would not run into trouble with the mayor and other politicians, who are just trying to do their jobs.

See what I did there? When civilians protest the unjust actions of police, they are labelled law breakers and trouble makers by police. But when Police disagree with their rule makers and enforcers, well this is just a legitimate qualm!

But I thank the NYC police officers for proving a very important point. The police are only there to keep us safe when their tax collection has been accomplished. They are well aware of this, which is why their protest has taken the form of denying the City of New York revenue generally collected by the police.

By showing some support for protesters, Mayor De Blasio has found himself on the wrong side of the thin blue line, and is being punished by the police. Just like protesters who film police in an attempt to keep them accountable for their actions are arrested, beat and harassed by some officers. You cannot criticize the actions of even a handful of officers, because according to the police, this means you are ungrateful, and probably just want to break the law.

And the rest of us are sitting back here a little confused like, wait, we got what we wanted? Why did the police cut down on arresting people for victimless crimes and stop giving out revenue generating tickets? Only once you realize their real role do you understand: they are punishing the mayor by denying him revenue for the city that the officers usually extort from the people of New York.

It is great when there is some infighting amongst the organized crime syndicate called government. Takes the pressure off the peasants for a while. I certainly wonder how it will turn out: I am sure De Blasio wants to get his hands back on the peoples’ wallets, and I am sure the police want to keep acting like a gang without being criticized by their superiors.

If you resist an officer even when you have done nothing wrong, many will use this as an excuse to beat, arrest, and possibly even murder you. So would it not be fitting that since these officers are resisting their boss, they should be fired?

Or perhaps the NYC police are really just thugs who always want it their way, whether their way is right or wrong. They will claim they are just following orders, but then they will attempt to strong arm their boss into changing the orders.

Well it seems if they have that much control, couldn’t they simply not arrest people for law violations they disagree with? I think the NYC cops have tipped their hand. They like harassing people, and will only give De Blasio what he wants, if they get what they want: free reign over the city of New York.

Should I Trust The Government?

20141210_101127How is this even a question anymore? Why do people still jump to support their slave masters, and make excuses for every abuse we suffer as inferior citizens to the political class?

Since the first NSA spying revelations came to light, the government has repeatedly changed the story, only to be caught lying with the next revelations. We have a Nobel Peace Prize winning President who’s drones have bombed wedding parties in a country we are not even at war with. America has police officers armed to the teeth with military weapons, who kill more innocent Americans per year than terrorists. All the while these elitists don’t trust us with guns, they call peaceful groups terrorists, and every injustice is carried out with our money, in a system where theft is legitimate if you call it taxes instead of extortion.

America puts people in jail for drug crimes without a victim, yet those who teamed up with the government to steal our tax dollars for their corporations are free. America puts away organic farmers and raw milk salesmen 1,000 times more aggressively than it prosecutes murderous cops, and corrupt congressmen.

Insider trading is legal for members of Congress! But If I want to start my own business, I better not conceal from the IRS anything that I have earned. Better yet, I should not speak out publicly about politics if I don’t want to be audited.

And now we see the CIA torture report, which seems to reveal who the true terrorists are. Water boarding to the point of almost drowning in a salt pit dungeon where they claimed nothing of the sort ever happened. Shoving foreign objects and substances up rectums because it prevented terrorist attacks. Can you imagine the fury and volume of exploded metal that would shower the middle east if American marines were routinely treated in such a way? Then it would be torture, but sitting in the courtyard of the evil empire makes people here claim these are necessary tactics. These tactics do work out for some: namely the people in government who want perpetual war. You see, when the sheeple give the government more power, and more money in times of war, you can expect a government that is perpetually at war.

And how far do you have to go back to when the U.S. government quite literally enslaved young men, and sent them off to die for their homeland? The draft? Are you kidding me? How the hell did anyone put up with this?! And they criticize our generation! Their brothers, fathers, sons, cousins, and friends were taken at the point of a gun, and thrust toward the “enemy” in Vietnam in countless waves to die. Almost 18,000 of those 650,000 slaves, forced into a mercenary army, died while slaves to this country.

That was all legal. How can people support laws without questioning whether they are just? How has it gotten to the point that almost 70 years after the Nuremberg trials, men and women in our government are repeating the phrase used by Nazi’s, with success no less: “I was just following orders”. We aren’t supposed to get mad at the SWAT members who kill innocent 7 year old girls in their bed when the wrong house is raided. They were just following orders.


It was about 75 years ago that this very government violated the rights of anyone with Japanese ancestry, and put them in concentration camps! There are people alive today that were sent there by this very government! How can anyone fathom trusting a single action of the government, with so much as an ounce of their being?! Stockholm syndrome does not begin to express the blind and insane devotion many have to such a sociopathic abusive “Motherland”.

This government makes no distinction between protesters and rioters, except when the protesters are gassed and pepper sprayed. This government threatens more legal action against those who would protect their private property, than those looting it. A free market is conflated with a government regulated market: the non-existent former is blamed for all the problems caused by the latter.

It was once legal to own slaves, illegal to drink alcohol, legal to subjugate women, illegal to own gold. Laws are meaningless. Right and wrong is meaningful. Yet many are more concerned with obeying the laws than protecting actual victims. 80,000 dangerous SWAT raids a year for drugs, when the public was assured 30 years ago the teams would only be used for hostage situations. We are now being told that military tanks going to local police will only be used against terrorists, and in hostage situations. Last time they used a bearcat in a hostage situation, the hostage was killed.


But with all the fear, doom and gloom, God forbid I want to own a big gun myself! It is not hard to figure these people out, they count on blind obedience. If they cared about our safety, they would not try to stop us from obtaining weapons, and protecting ourselves against criminals with them. Edward Snowden aided the American people with revelations about how corrupt our government is, and they charged him with aiding the enemy. So then who is the enemy?

And still people think they can bring about peace and equality through government action. People think a system agressive by nature, hierarchical by design could bring about peace and equality. Others hate everything the government does, until it comes to their foot soldiers, the only ones who could actually carry out the oppression ordered down by the elites. The smartest thing politicians ever did to secure their own power was to splinter fascism into the two party system, to keep the peasants perpetually arguing about the “differences”. One idolizes the welfare nanny state, one worships the military police state.

Should you trust the government? Never has the answer to a question been so obviously: No, Never. Don’t sit there and pretend I’m paranoid. Don’t complacently think anything would be different now than it has been for the past 100 years, when it comes to the intentions and actions of the government.

You know, we all know, what we’ll get if we trust the government. You know exactly what you will get, because it will be exactly what everyone who has ever trusted the government has got.

Public Schools: Incarcerate and Indoctrinate

Public schools are really good at preparing students for three things: 1) a job in a factory or cubicle, 2) a job in the government, 3) prison.

Remembering back, talking to teachers, talking to students, and substitute teaching (in one of the relatively good public schools) has convinced me that there is one reason kids are sent to public school, and it isn’t to educate them.

Obey. Public schools take the natural state of things, and flip it upside down. If you have a natural urge such as hunger of having to use the bathroom, you must ask permission. Permission, from the teacher (and by extension government) must be acquired before emptying your bladder or receiving sustinence—two of the most basic natural human occurrences. Lesson: authority trumps nature.

Hierarchy: Obey Your Masters

There is not much controversy over the fact that public schools were set up to prepare children for a life in the factory. But as factory jobs became less prevalent, the same techniques of schooling were used. It is possible that the cubicle set up for private companies arose to accommodate a workforce that had been trained for one thing: working in factories. And it is easier to adjust to fit the government’s plan than to try to change the system of “educating” millions of potential employees.

If you observe many similarities in private industry and public schools, you are observing the effect of government force on private industry. The plethora of employment options and styles in a free market would amaze anyone from such a brutally structured society as ours. But what does industry have to work with? A relatively low skilled, but obedient mass of robots, with a built in system of trying to outcompete their co-workers. Why bother trying (and paying) to change the work force? Just adjust the business model.

The corporate ladder was programmed in high school, and it rigidly defines where and when the competition should take place, overseen by the company leaders of course. Competition on your own however is considered anti-social. If you don’t want to work with a team, you are weird. And when you’re on a team, if you don’t try to claw your way to the top of the ranks, you are also weird.

One teacher is in charge of many students, and the students must direct all uncertainties at the teacher for answers and orders. But the teacher is likewise constrained by a hierarchy. He or she cannot simply do whatever they want, they must report to the principal, who likewise reports to the superintendent. The superintendent is constrained by the school board, elected by the people, giving the impression that the people control the board, who controls the superintendent, who controls the principal, who controls the teachers, who control the students.

But really elections only give the impression of control over our government. We are voting for a school board to have power in our place, and power over us. The parents aren’t who decides what is best for their kid, it is the school board.

Four year olds through 18 year olds are expected to sit still for 6 hours a day (not including homework), 180 days per year, for 12 years. Nothing could be more opposite the natural state of things. These are the most energetic years humans have, yet we are being taught that it is not appropriate to run, dance, skip, laugh, climb or even move without permission—except for maybe 15 minutes at recess.

Government Can Magically Turn Something Bad into Something Good

If your kid cannot handle sitting still, it is not because they are a normal kid. It is because they are deranged and unfit for our wonderful society. They have ADD or ADHD or are bipolar or have anger issues. Pump them full of drugs!

These same drugs are illegal when not packaged in a nice pill form, but this is another government lesson. The government has the power to take two seemingly identical things, and say one is okay, and one is not. Theft is wrong, except when the government takes your money by force and calls it taxes. Murder is wrong, except when government executes criminals, bombs enemies, or kills innocent civilians while “trying to accomplish a greater good”. Kidnapping is wrong, unless the government does it. And drugs are bad, unless the company that makes them pays the FDA millions of dollars to say they are safe fore the market.

So kids get legal cocaine to focus (Ritalin, Concerta, Adderall), and legalized heroin to relax (oxycontin, oxycodone, Vicodin, Zoloft). But if you smoke weed, you will be thrown in jail, and have future opportunities ripped away from you. Can’t you see that drugs will ruin your life? Just look at how we ruined your life when we caught you with “drugs”. Can’t you just stick to pills like most well adjusted American breeds?

Sports: Nationalism, Patriotism, and Destruction of Enemies

Then there are the sports teams. Bring glory to your town by defeating the enemy—another town. If you are not one of the warriors, support them ferociously, insulting others you have never met from rival towns. Fights will at some point break out in the stands, giving even the spectators an opportunity to join in, and show the rival denizens whose government controlled land mass is subjectively better.

Perhaps it is natural for teams to want to compete against eachother. But the teams would not necessarily be organized under various governments (towns). Most likely friends would come together, or those with similar interests, or someone capable of organizing talent would bring a team together. Then the teams are not competing “town versus town”—a predecessor to country vs. country. The teams would be made up of those who share mutual interests in one way or another, and have chosen to associate with each other.

Geographic proximity with borders defined by government is the current method of deciding who will fight who at the high school level. Someday it will be USA vs. Iraq, or USA vs. Russia, or USA vs. China, etcetera. But early on it is ingrained that you fight ferociously and without question for the hometown. Not because your hometown has any special qualities, just because you live there.

Institutionalized: You Scare Society, We Will Confine You

Prisons benefit the political class as well (redistributing stolen tax dollars), and it should be obvious that schools prepare certain students for a life behind bars. The reason you scare society is because they are afraid you might hurt them: they are afraid you as an individual might do what the government does everyday, and initiate force. But not wanting to wait for that aggression to rear its head, the government outlaws any number of things which do not have a victim.

You don’t have to shoot anyone to go to jail, you just have to carry a gun without seeking permission from the government first. You don’t have to kill anyone driving irresponsibly to be punished, you just have to imbibe more than two drinks which could lead to hurting someone. You don’t have to murder someone while high on any number of illicit drugs, you just have to be in possession of the drug, which could lead to aggressive behavior when taken. You don’t have to build an unsafe house to be punished, you just have to violate a code which theoretically could keep people safer. And you don’t have to rape anyone to be a sex offender, you just have to pee in public, because in America, we equate nudity with sex.

Some kids do actually misbehave. But if they misbehave in a public school, they were forced to be there. The system wouldn’t have to deal with many of these kids if they just let them be. In fact many would find meaningful employment in trades without being forced to waste 12 years in public schools. So instead of learning to hate authority, they would be working on an engine. Instead of being bored to tears until they lash out, they might be doing something worth while. But they would at least be doing something they want to do. Stop forcing certain people to associate with each other.

And other kids are not actually misbehaviors, they are just labelled as such because they have a lot of energy. These kids are the worst off in public schools, because it wastes their time, and sets up a self fulfilling prophecy. “If you can’t make it in public schools,” they say, “you won’t make it in real life”. That is a lie though. You don’t need public schools to become an expert on building houses, plumbing, electricity—in fact I never learned any of those things in public school. Yet they are all important and lucrative ventures.

But an employer doesn’t like a criminal record. So when kids are prosecuted for smoking weed, it is not the weed ruining their lives, it is the government. When kids are sent to the principal’s office for goofing off, it is not the goofing off that is the problem. It is the institution they were forced into at the point of a gun.

Public School Success Stories

Kids that emerge from public schools educated, with their future in tact do so for one of two reasons.

1) They have parents who did most of the educating around the dinner table, and throughout life, which is really how most learning takes place anyway. These parents, if not already paying for public school, would likely structure a program at home to school their kids, or send them to a private school for their education. There are so many options these days: home school co-ops have sprung up, where parents decide to group their kids together, and each teach a different course or grade level.

2) The second type of student who emerges from public education with their future in tact is the one who took the government lessons to heart. These students have learned that they must obey authority, and are best suited for a job in government, generally in the bureaucracy, but possibly other places depending on their skill set.

The ones who learned the most from high school sports might join the military, or become police. The ones who excelled in the soft sciences will do great scattered throughout departments of the federal government. The ones who learned public school history might go on to learn intelligentsia history, and with their vastly warped worldview could become professors, political staff, or activists. There might even be a few math and science whizzes who also learned to bow down to authority. Great fit for the IRS, or NASA.

But something they all have in common is that they accept the authority over them, and believe it is just. They have been brainwashed into thinking that the natural state of things is to submit to arbitrary authority. And worse, an authority who is allowed to do all the things that you are not allowed to do like steal, attack, and murder.

And that is the final and scariest group to emerge from public schools. The ones that understand the political system will benefit a sociopath the best. They are the ones who get it: that authority is not really an authority except for their guns pointed at us. But instead of fighting that unjust system, they decide to join it. They do this out of fear, but more often because they want the power for themselves. They rise to the highest ranks of government, and perpetuate the system, starting with public education, using force for their own interests.

The Difference: When Things Are Naturally Organized Without Force

The very word organized has the root of organic right in there. An organism is a living thing, not planned, not a robot, naturally occurring. So why on earth would people think we need the government to “organize” society? Organic means it grows naturally without tweaking or adding. Our lives, our economy, our “organization” of life would be a hell of a lot more organized if left to the natural development. No force, just mutually beneficial transactions.

You see, in nature, it is not that you can’t have your rights violated, it is that they are naturally recognized. If a wolf goes into the territory already marked by another wolf, he cannot expect to emerge from that alive and unscathed. It is understood that the property marked by the first wolf is his, and will be defended as such, to the point of death. The most likely even that will happen upon invading another wolf’s territory is the death of the intruder, since the defender has more to lose. This leads to a natural tendency of the invading wolf to move on to territory not yet claimed by another wolf, and avoid confrontation for the sake of survival.

What we have is a government who takes the natural state of things, and says we can make it better, and we can do this by using force. No longer will a wolf necessarily die if he invades another wolf’s territory, because 100 more packs will descend upon the wolf who defends his territory from certain other wolves. These wolves that help the first one conquer the territory have nothing to gain from this personally, they do it because of third party influence. And the resources they use to do it (taxes), were stolen, not earned.

Imagine a scientist saying he could rip out a human’s circulatory system, and replace it, better, with a mechanical one. That is insane. Yet we allow the government to do that to our children, starting at moldable young ages, and not stopping until the development of their brains is essentially set in stone, according to the government’s blue print.

To be clear, I am not criticizing sports teams, education, business, or structure in general. I am criticizing the force used by government to create a system where they design the type of citizens they want. I want a system where these things are naturally organized by those whose interests they involve.

And I am convinced that we would end up with a happier work force, a more prosperous population, and more advancement in general. It only makes sense, based on the way humans act when met with incentives and disincentives. Currently there are vastly more government created incentives to becoming a obedient worker, rather than a creator. And when people emerge from a public school educated, the state gloriously takes credit.

This relates to an earlier post about how government will take credit for all the good in society, and blame the bad on their enemies. Everything good within a society is attributed to the government, and everything bad to whoever the government has deemed an enemy. It was not family values and good parenting that made that student smart, it was the government. The dumb student? No, no, that wasn’t the government. That was… video games? Gun toting parents? Drugs! Ah yes, another victim of the drug cartels.

In reality, much of the good is organic, while much of the evil is created by government “solutions” because the basis for government is force.

It is a farce. The government is not responsible for the things which happen to go right in society despite their intervention. The market is strong enough to overcome some of the government intrusion to deliver what the people demand from industry, but not all of it. And as the old saying goes, if you think the problems government causes are bad, just wait until you see their solutions.

Government: I don’t think they do what you think they do…

With such colossal and aggressive government, it can be quite difficult to analyze all of the effects it has on private life, the economy, crime, and essentially every aspect of civilian life. If you go by the government’s own record, you might think everything good that happens is due to government, and everything bad that happens is because of one government detractor or another: drug cartels, terrorists, survivalists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims—there have been many scapegoats throughout history. But when you understand market forces, you can begin to tease apart what influence the government has had on our society.

Obviously, the government creates the narrative, so they will naturally place themselves as the constant savior, while any of their critics will be the perpetual villain. It is obvious to most people that this is not always the case, but indeed I firmly believe it to never be the case. Right off the bat is the fact that government lies. Everyone knows it, starting right from the fact that they claim everything they do is beneficial when we all (yes, EVERYONE) knows that is not true.

Republicans know that the Democratic politicians lie, and Republicans know that the Democratic appointees lie. The Fascists blamed the Socialists, the Monarchs blamed the Communists, and pretty much everyone blamed the Jews. If you are anti-war you know the government lies about terrorists. If you are anti-welfare you know the government lies about poverty. If you laissez-faire you know the government lies about the economy, and if you are Keynesian you know the government lies about capitalism.

The next big step is realizing practically everything the government says is a lie, and practically everything it does serves an ulterior motive. It is not the government that keeps us safe, it is not the government that keeps us fed, it is not the government that educates us, it is not the government who houses us, and it is most certainly not the government that organizes society.
inigoIn fact, most disorder in society is a result of the government’s attempt to implement their vision of an organized society. And there is nothing magic about government versus industry; you need only to consider what each actually is at its core. The government cannot exist without coercion, or we would not call it a government. Monopolizing the initiation of force is a defining characteristic of government; they allow themselves, but supposedly no one else (besides their cronies), to aggress upon people, not just in retaliation, but to fund everything they do. They use this aggression anywhere within their arbitrarily defined borders without typical consequences that anyone else could expect from attacking someone, or being aggressive.

Industry on the other hand, when not working in tandem with government, is constrained by market responses, as in, people will not put up with being aggressed upon. The government can come to my house with guns and force me to pay them protection money. A business must attract me to their product or service in order to get my money. I must obey the government or face jail or death. With business, I must agree to the price and they the product (a mutually beneficial transaction), and if no agreement is found, we will simply go our separate ways.

Some people think that without government, businesses would be able to come to your house and demand money. But there is nothing to back this up. In fact, economic principles refute this. Just like the threat of mutual destruction keeps wolves from invading other wolves’ territory, so would businesses seek to avoid costly confrontation, in order to continue to make a profit.

This makes even more sense when you consider that various businesses would offer services (with profit as their incentive) to protect individuals from any number of criminals, including cartels. A cartel is essentially a business that begins to use government tactics to fund their enterprise (government tactics being forcing “customers” to pay them money, like taxes or mafia style “protection”). Then any aggressive company would be picking on someone their own size (another company), and thus could expect at least the ruin of their business, and probably death or confinement, if they initiate force against innocent people.

The only reason this would happen is if the market (AKA people who earn and spend money) places no value on peace. I like peace, do you like peace? Yeah even people who don’t like peace generally have to pretend they do. Companies can currently make money off war because the government steals our money and gives it to the military industrial complex. If the companies had to earn the money, war would be avoided at all costs to maintain profits, attract customers, attract employees, and for management to stay alive and not in a cage.

I Put Up With the Murder of Hundreds of Millions of Innocent Human Beings, and All I got Was This Lousy Road

So you see, the mechanisms exist in a free market to offer all the benefits of organized society, without the detriments of accepting government force as okay. Plus, there would be a clear line: initiation of force is never okay, even if an organization calls themselves a government.

This would prevent prosecution for victimless crimes, since without a victim, who would pay for the prosecution? It would also stop genocides carried out by governments, as has happened over the past century in Cambodia, Indonesia, Turkey, Germany, Russia, China, Darfur, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Rwanda, Iraq, and North Korea to name a few. Currently, governments can do any number of terrible things under the guise of helping people, the greater good, or simply having enough guns and soldiers to not require an excuse for their aggression.

Now one might think with such an insanely lopsided record of governments carrying out evil against all sorts of innocent and peaceful people, that the burden of proof would rest on government as to the benefits it creates. It seems they would have to do a lot of good in order to make up for the murder, torture, and imprisonment of at very least half a billion innocent people, in only 100 years. But the government gets to write the narrative. Building roads is necessary, so just ignore the vast atrocities. And also don’t give it much thought, because you will realize you didn’t need government to build the roads after all. And you don’t need the government to keep you safe either—they are a bigger threat to your safety than the people they “protect” you from.

If it can all be summed up in one sentence, here it is. People must currently seek permission from government to exist, where as in a free market with no government, businesses would require permission from people to exist.

And that is why a free market would create a better society than the government has. Stay tuned, because the government could not create such a false narrative, without the tools to mold the population to their liking: public education.

You Can’t Disprove the Merits of a Free Market with Examples from a Regulated Market

I can’t help myself. Every time I see an article headline smugly bragging to have debunked libertarianism, I have to click! I have to see, is this an argument I haven’t heard before, or is it the tired old, “look how evil capitalism is, here are my references from crony capitalism”.

So far, that is all I have found. Writers list everything wrong with “free markets”, and then give examples from a government regulated market about how bad business is when left to their own devices. It is exhausting. I can’t tell who is honestly too stupid to see the difference, and who is willfully deceiving people.

A free market is when all economic transactions in a given area happen without coercion. Only mutually beneficial transactions and trade take place.

The American market is one plagued by coercion, from taxes, regulations, and laws. It also sees its fair share of intervention in the form of bailouts, subsidies, and grants.

The former is met with scoffs. They say, “Well when has there ever been a free market? They don’t exist”. Uhh yeah, that’s why we are trying to create one. Markets have existed however that were close to free, and these consistently perform better in moving all of the society forward.

This is not conjecture, it is economics. Somehow anti-libertarians become science haters when it comes to economics. Supply and demand is considered not proven; economic incentives and disincentives to them sound like talking points, but  reality shows they are closer to mathematical principles.

Here’s how a free market helps people. It allows some people to amass great wealth through providing the masses with something in demand. Part of this wealth will be used to demand another product or service in turn. This demand provides others with economic opportunity to supply the demand. This supplier then amasses wealth, and can likewise use the excess to demand another product or service, etc. until the entire society is riding around on hover-boards.

Here’s how a controlled market ends us up exactly where anti-libertarians think the free market lands us. The middle class is taxed the most, because the rich can pay off the right people to get tax loopholes, and the poor are exempt below a certain income, or net a positive cash flow (they pay taxes, but receive more in housing, welfare etc.).

These tax dollars are then redistributed by the government to corporations in the form of bailouts, subsidies, and grants. Despite market disapproval, certain companies persist because they are funded by our stolen tax dollars. Sometimes the government even gives favorable court rulings to a company which had bought them off, such as with Monsanto. Sometimes the government regulates a favored company’s competitor to non-existence, such as using the FCC to crush cable and media alternatives.

Yet anti-libertarians will say, “look, we have only a small handful of people controlling media! Free markets don’t work”. And that is when I bash my head against the wall because it cannot get any clearer that government intervention into the market caused all these things.

Pollution, sketchy bank dealings, fraud, ponzi schemes, cover-ups: they are all either facilitated by the government, or kept from the public view by government. That means the market cannot properly respond in order to regulate these businesses. People mistake this inability for self regulation in a government controlled market as the inability for a free market to regulate itself.

No not magically. That’s what they all say, we think the market will magically regulate itself. They forget the market is us, consumers, individuals who will choose where to shop and what to buy. If people think the FDA, USDA, FCC, EPA and so on and so forth will regulate business properly in their place, they get what we have now, crony capitalism.

And yes, crony capitalism does indeed lead to inequality. Use all the examples from the regulated American market you want, they all prove this. Most of the “free market doesn’t work” myth relies on people mistaking the American economy for a free market. But it should be quite blatantly obvious that it is not a free market, and has not been for over a century at least.

Could This Article Be Different?

So when I saw the article, How Piketty’s Bombshell Book Blows Up Libertarian Fantasies, part of me hoped that it in fact did. When you are after truth, it is not so scary to find out you are wrong.

It starts with some Milton Friedman quotes about how focusing on freedom will lead to liberty and equality, while focusing on equality will lead to neither. But alas, the bombshell?

Well, that turns out to be spectacularly, jaw-droppingly, head-scratchingly wrong. The U.S. is now a stunningly unequal society, with wealth piling up at the top so fast that an entire movement, Occupy Wall Street, sprung up to decry it with the catchphrase “We are the 99%.”

How do I reach these kiiiiiids! What a bombshell! You mean a regulated market has not performed the way libertarians say an unregulated market would perform!?! I say sir, quite the academic conclusion!

And you know, zoologists once thought that horses ate hay, but it turns out pandas eat bamboo. How can people keep claiming that horses eat hay when every single panda we observe eats bamboo!!!

Well they’re both mammals, and the claim that the mammal horses eat hay has long been a rallying call for zootarians. We have blown up these zootarian fantasies by proving that the mammal panda only eats bamboo.

See what I did there? I pretended the operative word was mammal, when the entire distinction was in the type of mammal. Anti-libertarians pretend the operative word is market, but “free” is the important part, versus “regulated”. You cannot disprove the merits of a free market by exclusively using examples from a regulated market.

Libertarians do not use America as an example of a free market. So pointing out wealth inequality in America says nothing about a free market. This market is not even close to free! Why don’t they just use GM or Solyndra as examples of the free market?

“See people didn’t want GM cars, but GM still exists, evil free market!” Oh wait, the government bailed out the big bad corporation with money stolen from the middle class. The taxpayers provided the now bankrupt Solyndra’s billionaire founder a taxpayer backed loan that will never be recovered. So the “rich get richer” precisely because the market is not free.

Over time billionaire George Kaiser’s wealth would fade in a free market unless he, say, built solar panels that worked and helped people. He actually built terrible solar panels that would not sell. This still made him richer, because the government redistributed tax dollars to him. In the free market, no one would have bought his shoddy product, and his investment would be lost.

People got mad that GM CEO pay was still high after the taxpayer bailout. The free market did not pay the CEO millions of dollars; in fact the free market dictated that the CEO should get exactly zero dollars. But the government stepped in and said our regulated market will redistribute wealth to the incompetent CEO of GM, who provides no one with an in demand product.

Oil subsidies, sugar subsidies, gas taxes, sugar taxes, media regulation, pharmaceutical regulation, the revolving door of lobbyists, bailouts, loans, redistribution, government contracts, high taxes, low taxes, tax incentives, tax loopholes, Justice Department of former Wall Street defenders, judges on Board’s of Directors, zoning laws, IRS targeting, media intimidation: these are just some of the not free things about the American market.

Rinse and Repeat

I would dissect the rest of the article, but it literally just repeats the same fallacy with different examples from America.

This phenomenon really got going after 1980, when wealth started flowing in vast quantities from the bottom 90 percent of the population to the top 10 percent… John Galt, the hero of Atlas Shrugged (1957), captured the imaginations of young students like Paul Ryan, who worshipped Galt as a superman who could rise to the top through his vision, merit and heroic efforts.

No, Reagan did not make the market free. Anti-libertarians love to point this out when they talk about how much the “right’s savior” spent and increased the debt… but Reagan magically transforms back into a free market de-regulator when it fits their narrative.

Not since before the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 could anyone even pretend anything resembling a free market existed in America. Perhaps some had amassed great wealth before then, but they could not keep that wealth in a free market, due to competition. They had to appeal to the government (like George Kaiser and the CEO of GM) to rig the system in the rich’s favor, to eliminate competitors–something that will only happen in a free market by outcompeting them (better prices, better quality, innovation, etc.).

Oh and maybe the author never read Atlas Shrugged. John Galt had not risen to the top of society. He was working as a janitor, despite having the intellect capable of building and maintaining a device that harnessed practically free energy. Yes, Ayn Rand wrote fiction. But her entire point was that the government in Atlas Shrugged prevented a free market, such that even skilled people like Galt could not (or did not see the point to) rise to a reward level appropriate for their skill, based on the benefits to society their skills could confer.

Which brings us back to Friedman’s view that people naturally get what they deserve, that reward is based on talent.

No, no. This is our panda versus horse problem. Friedman did not say that in any market people naturally get what they deserve, just like zoologists do not say that any mammal can survive on hay alone. Friedman says that in a free market people naturally are rewarded based on their talent.

If the market is free, then people will be rewarded based on skill. If the mammal is a horse, then it will survive on hay.

If the market is regulated, then people will not necessarily be rewarded based on skill. If the mammal is a panda, then it cannot necessarily survive on hay.

If you want to disagree fine, but don’t make your argument against a free market using negative examples from a regulated market. A zoologist wouldn’t argue that horses can’t survive on hay based on examples of pandas not surviving on hay, even though they are both mammals.

There’s no magic involved in a free market, just non coercive mutually beneficial transactions. When that is all that is acceptable, you will not end up with how things have ended up in America, and other regulated markets.

Now I started this off by saying that if you actually care about truth, it really isn’t that bad to be wrong from time to time. Yet every attempt to exit society and form a free market–without even forcing others to participate–is met with more force, regulation, taxation, and intervention.

Why not let us give it a try? After all, if all the dire predictions come true, anti-libertarians would finally have an example of a FREE market with which to make their points, instead of relying on fallacies.

Forced Grouping versus Voluntary Collectives

“Oh what you belong to ___ group? I thought you libertarians and anarcho-capitalists hated collectives! Ha, everything you stand for is disproven.”

Ever heard that one, or some variation of it? Well I can’t say it much better than Bastiat himself, however I will expand on his rebuttal.


I feel like a broken record: no we aren’t against helping the poor, we are against forced extortion to supposedly help the poor. No we are not against education, we are against forced indoctrination. No we are not against law and order, we are against forced grouping that makes us subservient to others to whom the law does not equally apply, and who can initiate force without the same consequences as the civilians.

Anarchists and libertarians are not against voluntary collectives, they are against forced collectives.

Yesterday I was walking in the woods with some friends. We had been hiking for a while and turned and twisted around many paths when we came to a four way intersection. Not wanting to turn back, we began to discuss which way would be best to take. In fact after some discussion, we all agreed to take the same path. But suppose I thought a different path was better. Should I attempt to force them to take the path I want? Or should they, being in the majority, attempt to force me to take the path they want? Of course not.

In a voluntary group, I am free to leave or stay. In the middle of the woods my options are to agree with the group, or be left alone. I see value in the group, and that is why I submit to the majority. Not because the majority has the right to force their will on the minority, and not even because the will of the majority is necessarily better in some way than the minority. No one claims that groups cannot be of great use and help. But they must be voluntary groups in order to serve this purpose best.

Forced Grouping

In addition to the post I wrote on Sociopaths Among Us for this blog, I tailored a similar post for my other, non-political blog. A commenter brought up an awesome point, inspired by the book The Gift of Fear by Gavin Debecker. The book is non-fiction about how our intuition is actually picking up subconscious signals which logically lead us to be uneasy in certain situations when everything does not line up, even though we might not be able to pinpoint why.

Interestingly enough, I just thought about this book yesterday because the book discusses a tactic used by these types of people called “forced teaming” where they create a “we” or “us” when there really isn’t one. For example, a stranger approaches you and says “look at this rain we got ourselves stuck in, I guess we’re going to have to go into this dark abandoned structure together”. The point is is that there is no “WE”. The person is a stranger and this is a tactic that they use to get you to do something that you normally wouldn’t be comfortable with doing.

The reason why I thought of that is because I kept seeing political slander ads that said things like, “this candidate is not for us” and “this candidate doesn’t share our values”. I immediately thought, who is “us” and “our values”? It is scary the little things that people or groups do like that that the untrained or unsuspecting person might fall prey to.

Emphasis added. If forced pairing is a tactic used by dishonest people who are attempting to get someone from you, or victimize you, why would we think it is any different when politicians do it? The government is attempting to victimize you and me by getting us to feel apart of a team that does not exist. There is no us when it comes to government! Any “us” is a forced us, through arbitrary borders, or the IRS, or congressional districting, etcetera.

There is no “us” when it comes to a politician. They are attempting to steal your money, and give it away to their political donors after lining their pockets. They want to force you to comply with a new law, or get you to join in on the forced pairing, and benefit at the detriment of your “team mates”. Some want to make sure gay couples can force bakers to make them cakes, and force pastors to say they are married. Some want to throw you in jail if you smoke a joint, or take more of your money for bombing… I don’t know who, just pick a middle eastern country, I’m sure we are bombing them.

But the only legitimate collectives are voluntary, and all the others ones are for someone to gain while the forced members lose. When it is an individual sociopath trying to get you alone inside a dark building, we see the evils in forced pairing. But somehow when a politician does the same thing, so many are inclined to believe them: “Oh I like him, he looks me in the eye”. Great… great… have fun inside that creepy basement.

Any forced collective is bad, because it just means that some people are slaves, or caged to the desires of others. And when collectives are not forced, only the best ones form and persist. When a collective is voluntary, people only join for mutual gain, and can leave when they no longer value the group. And likewise, the group can expel a member who  takes and takes without contributing.

Sociopaths Among Us

anmemedictatorNot all sociopaths become the violent murderers of horror movies, or sadistic creatures trolling the night for victims. Most sociopaths convince everyone around them that they are not a sociopath. You know and interact with sociopaths, probably every day. According to some estimates, about 4% of the population could be considered sociopathic, meaning they feel no guilt or remorse, and do not care about others’ suffering. You could say what makes a sociopath is lack of conscience.

And worse, sociopaths are generally charismatic, and naturally seek positions of power. While reading up on the sociopaths, I came across what looks like an interesting book on the subject by Martha Stout called The Sociopath Next Door. It is not that these people wouldn’t murder, or don’t want to rape, they simply do not see that as an expedient way to get what they want. But, if you are in the proper position of power, you can get away with murder, rape, and any other number of things which might appeal to a sociopath.

So 1 in 25, at least 12 million Americans, are sociopaths, just waiting to gain the advantage over you or me, so that they can do whatever they want, no matter how much it hurts others, as long as it serves their interests or desires.

The fact is, we all almost certainly know at least one or more sociopaths already. Part of the urgency in reading The Sociopath Next Door is the moment when we suddenly recognize that someone we know—someone we worked for, or were involved with, or voted for—is a sociopath. But what do we do with that knowledge? To arm us against the sociopath, Dr. Stout teaches us to question authority, suspect flattery, and beware the pity play. Above all, she writes, when a sociopath is beckoning, do not join the game.

More easily said than done. How can I not join the game of the IRS agent auditing me, or the cop who has pulled me over, or the bureaucrat who has denied my permits and licenses? In a world of free association, we could simply avoid sociopathic people, or protect ourselves when we come into contact with them. But when sociopaths attain extra rights and privileges, and not only protection for, but endorsement of their crimes, what are we to do?

Elect the right people? Chances are, many of these races for office are one sociopath running against another. And then these people appoint the bureaucrats, and hire the police. They approve and promote people that are like them, that will similarly serve their interests, and that will turn a blind eye to sociopathic behavior.

Question authority, or better yet, reject authority when possible. If everyone were actually considered equal, instead of some with government backing having more right and protections, then we would be able to simply react to a sociopath properly when they initiate force against us. So if authority in general is rejected, if we refuse to submit to force, that would make it easy to react to sociopaths. No you may not take my money because you claim you will do better things with it than I could. Oh but the poor, elderly, sick….

Beware the pity play. Do you honestly think they care? Does anyone honestly believe the politicians when they say they want to or have helped the poor? Is that what Obamacare is about, helping sick people? Or is it about controlling people, casting minions down into their rightful place beneath the boot of sociopathic rulers? If politicians cared about solving poverty, it would be solved. I know this because the tax dollars spent on welfare per household in poverty dwarf the median income of Americans.

You could say it is simple inefficiency, but I say it is deliberate theft. But what do we expect from a system that allows sociopaths the benefit of the doubt, while us peasants must explain why we want privacy, we must seek permits to build, protect ourselves, open a business, and seek permission to move about, drive, travel, and we must pay our rulers for them graciously allowing us to work. How bout we all keep what is ours, and anyone that tries to take it can be assumed to be a sociopath, instead of assumed to be a philanthropist?

I just so happen to be reading A Clockwork Orange at the moment. The sociopathic narrator Alex gets out of jail after multiple rapes and murders to find his sociopathic former friends and cohorts have become police officers. These friends in fact engaged in the same rape and murder for which Alex was punished, but they were not caught. Now they have been given the badge and the gun, and set loose upon society to keep order. Alex runs into them, and even though he was being beaten up (albeit by a man he had once attacked) the police find it more enjoyable to teach Alex a lesson. They drive him out to the country side where they beat him, possibly worse, and leave him in the cold to his own devices.

Yes, it is only a book. But the point is that sociopaths are naturally drawn to positions of power. If a sociopath has no conscience, and wants to kill someone, he may not do it simply for fear of his own harm or death, or confinement if he is caught. But the disturbing trend of late is that police do not receive the same punishment for their crimes that the general public receives. The case that comes to mind is a former prison guard who received only probation and no jail time after being found guilty of 25 counts of sexual assault against female inmates, and trafficking drugs into the prison. He did not care about the injuries he caused to others. He found the proper channel to express his sociopathic desires. This channel served him well, as he will not have to answer for his crimes.

So if we stop giving some people power over others, we don’t have to worry about being at the mercy of a sociopath. What a novel concept, self ownership, and freedom of association. But as it stands now, any sociopath can well position himself with power, and be free to carry out his sadistic desires with impunity, all in the name of authority, or charity.

“Under the Gun” on WMRC: Listen Here!


Sometimes, it is just too much work to read. So sit back and listen to me and Harry of talk about guns, politics, and liberty!

CDC Study: More people each year are saved by people with guns than killed by people with guns.

“If you want to riddle someone with bullets, you’ve got to become a cop first”.

Jobs are being created in states with lower tax rates, while people flee high tax states.

People are leaving more repressive high tax states and increasing the GDP of low tax states by living and working there.

Vote with your feet, vote with your dollar, and be Vigilant before you do it.

The FDA, Commission E, and the Nazis

I thought of this little example to show that good government is a gamble.

Currently, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is a great example of horrible government. They get more than half of their operating budget from drug companies that are seeking FDA approval. Essentially everything people worry about without regulation of drug companies has happened under the FDA, because all the companies have to do is pay to play. There are plenty of dangerous drugs approved, and countless safe alternatives nixed, or simply not reviewed by the FDA. Big pharmaceuticals win by paying off the government, the little guy loses by having unsafe drugs on the market, or not getting their safe drug approved.

Commission E is Germany’s version of the FDA. They have reviewed hundreds of natural herbs to determine their effectiveness against diseases and ailments, and recommend when to use the herbs, in what way, and how much to use. This does not make Commission E money, they do it because that is their task as a government agency.

These are two government agencies, from two different governments. The FDA has become corrupt, wasteful, and harmful to the general public of the USA, while Commission E appears to be relatively neutral, and has helped people by suggesting natural cures. Neither one of them has much to worry about in the way of consequences for being wrong. Neither organization must meet the demands of the consumer. Each simply rely on the political process to make them work. Sometimes this proves affective, sometimes it proves disastrous.

But notice my example of good government comes from Germany. If you will recall, just 70 years ago the German government had started a global war, was wreaking havoc across Europe and Africa, was systematically murdering millions of Jews and Gypsies, and would leave its dark mark on the world for at very least, decades to come. Government can help people by recommending the proper herbs to eat and use in natural healing. It can also carry out genocides. But it is going to take a hell of a lot of cured sick people to make up for the tens of millions of lives ruined by the not-so-distant-past German government.

It is not impossible for government to do something good, but the odds are against it. And the good it does seldomly outweighs the bad it does.


At least in the private sector a business must attract customers and investors; corruption is unattractive. And guess what, much of what was publicized by Commission E was research already done in the private sector.

The difference between the depths to which a government can go, versus a business, is simply that a government can monopolize and kill competition with force. Without government for hire, businesses cannot do the same. If they care about their bottom line, engaging in mafia style tactics will be too costly on a scale as large as government does it. Even if they did try to bully their way to the top, the company’s reputation would suffer too much (and profits slip too much) to be able to establish monopoly control over the media, law enforce, justice system, and consumers. The only reason they can do so now is by using the budget of the United States government (almost $4 trillion each year) to do the policing, spew the propaganda, prosecute the enemies, “lose” the criminal file on the cronies, deregulate their business, over regulate their competitors, or force the public to buy a product.

And without a single government agency to pay off for approval (the FDA), it would be difficult for a company to buy good reviews from the hundreds of competing online and in print publications, organizations, and non-profits who evaluate drugs, and publish findings on healing remedies. The market for information would bring to light the risks of certain drugs, and turn profit from selling information on positive natural alternatives. Competition among these groups would keep the information reliable, and advertisers would keep the information cheap.

The point is that government can do good things, but does such bad things that it is impossible to outweigh them with the good. And even so, it is a gamble whether they will do anything good at all. If a business does something bad, you are not forced to give them your money anyway.

Private Security is No Scarier than Public Police

wvpI talk a lot about private security or private police and how these could replace government to prevent crime, bring criminals to justice, and protect innocent people. I started doing some research to see how many private police forces are already out there, and what they are all about. A Huffington Post piece was one of the first I read. I assumed it would be casting private police in a bad light, and so it did.

Police Brutality

The article mostly focused on Detroit, and talked about how evil greedy businessmen saw the—gasp—opportunity to profit off of Detroit’s misery! And one of these companies has bought 2 million square feet of real estate which it patrols with private police, and monitors with 300 cameras in and around the buildings. This, in the eyes of the HuffPo reporter, is a bad thing, because then only the rich will be protected! While if we let the government steal our money to pay for police, everyone will be equally unsafe, and that’s  more fair.

The author apparently ignores the fact that it is bad for business to have crime in and around their company, storefronts, workplace, etc. Therefore everyone within the vicinity would be protected in order to attract more customers, and not scare anyone off.

Interestingly, the concerns HuffPo raised about private police are playing out on a larger scale with public police: no accountability, the rich get better treatment while the poor are not sufficiently protected, and innocent people could be beaten or killed. The article then links to various cases of “private police” overstepping their authority.

Two of the cases involved security guards. One of these security guards was not working when he shot and killed a man who he was arguing with outside of a gas station. He has been charged with the man’s murder. The other security guard was fired from the school he worked at after attacking a boy with cerebral palsy who slapped and spit at the security guard. In each of these cases action was taken against the security personnel; they were treated as anyone would be for their unjustified actions. Contrast this with public police who routinely murder and attack innocent people without provocation, keep their jobs, and are not charged.

At worst the private security companies seem to be as bad as typically government police. The only case having to do with Detroit private security was one in which mall cops killed a man who they were restraining with force and pepper spray. The man had been “acting suspiciously” and was told to leave the mall. When he returned the next day, he allegedly threatened to kill someone, after which the incidents leading to his death unfolded.

But Eric Garner had not even threatened to kill anyone when he was suffocated to death by NYC police in July. He was suspected of selling cigarettes illegally, and video footage shows he did not react violently when a team of police confronted him, not in the act of selling untaxed cigarettes, but after Garner broke up a fight (isn’t that the cops’ job?). The man is seen with his hands in the air moments before police attack and kill him. The police officers at the center of the murder still have their jobs with the NYC police department, and have not been charged.

False Arrest

The HuffPo article also raises concerns about false arrests by private security personnel. Again, this information focuses mainly on mall cops who are tasked mostly with thwarting shoplifters. It seems that in actual incidents of false arrest, when a mall security officer detains or uses excessive force against a subject, the victim routinely receives awards in civil court. In fact, even when the victim was guilty of shoplifting, they still sometimes won in court after suing the security company, because of the excessive force used in detaining or interrogating the suspect.

Again, let’s contrast this with public police. There was a case of a man who was arrested and held for over twelve hours, all because he helped a bicyclist who had crashed. She was using the man’s phone when he was approached by responding police (who he had called), slammed to the ground, handcuffed, and arrested because he wouldn’t leave the scene immediately, even though the women who crashed still had this man’s phone. No action has been taken against the officers responsible.

There were also false arrests of reporters covering the Ferguson protests. In fact there are too many such cases to even properly give perspective here, like the high profile case of a New Mexico man who was given forced enemas by police and doctors who claimed he was hiding drugs. He was not hiding drugs, and the searches violated even the ridiculous warrant that authorized his detention. Other cases include assaults by police when people will not show their ID, and rape by police of people pulled over during traffic stops.

In response to the arrests of three law enforcement officials in Oklahoma for sexually assaulting women while on the job, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper told women they can avoid getting raped by a cop if they simply follow traffic laws.

Raw Story first pointed out on Tuesday that Capt. George Brown, a state trooper, shared a few tips for women in an interview with local NBC News affiliate KJRH. Brown told the KJRH anchor that women can keep their car doors locked and speak through a cracked window if a trooper approaches them. If the trooper asks a woman to get out of the car, Brown said, she can ask “in a polite way” why he wants her to do that.

But the “best tip that he can give,” the anchor said on air of her interview with Brown, “is to follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over.”

In the past month, a Tulsa County Deputy, an OHP trooper and an Oklahoma City police officer have all been charged with repeatedly raping and sexually assaulting women while on the job.

Anyone who has dealt with police knows how ridiculous it is to suggest only cracking the window, or asking an officer why you must exit the vehicle. This type of “resistance” will be met with extreme anger and aggression by police, likely assault, and probable charges of resisting arrest.

Are Private or Public Police Worse?

What exactly is the case that private police would be worse than public police? From the information I have read, it seems private security is more often held accountable than public police. Further, public police simply investigate their own incidents of police abuse which, surprise, often “prove” police acted according to procedure. And the incentives for behaving appropriately are stacked towards the private sector, where private police will be fired or prosecuted for violating rights, if for no other reason than protecting the profits of the company.

And in the most egregious cases of private security violating innocent people’s rights, the “private” security firm is hired by the government. This means they are not delivering a service in demand, but rather having stolen money (tax dollars) fund their enterprise. This makes them essentially the same as public police. The private police have to keep customers happy and not land themselves in too much civil litigation. The government can ignore their “customers” because they force us to fund them, and have the courts on their side. The more fragmented the system, the more likely it is that competing interests hold the others accountable.

Copblock, an organization dedicated to holding police accountable for their actions, sums up this sentiment.

I have never had a conversation about private protection services without the other person quickly bringing up Blackwater.  I think the biggest reason for the association is a misunderstanding of what a free-market anarchist means by the word private.  I will start by stating what a private company is NOT.  It is not a company that is funded by force through taxation.  It is not a company that has been granted a monopoly over a particular service by the government, and it is not a company that has been granted special legal protections against liability. 90% of Blackwater’s revenue comes from government contracts paid for with stolen money.  Blackwater’s “customer” is not only spending money that is stolen from you and me, but they are spending it on something very few people would actually fund voluntarily.  Would you personally hire Blackwater to kill people in Iraq?  Blackwater is essentially the same type of institution as your local police.  They are both funded through force and perform “services” that few that are forced to pay for those “services” want or need.  Blackwater is NOT what I am talking about when I discuss private protection services.

So, to be clear, I am not advocating a system where a municipality uses stolen money to hire the lowest bidder and then grants them the same immunities and privileges that the police now enjoy.  When I speak of a private company providing protection services, I am talking about a company that competes among other companies to attract individual customers.  Companies could package different services then sell them to willing customers.  Maybe you feel comfortable with providing your your own security, so you would only be interested in paying a company to investigate a crime that you were a victim of after the fact.  In reality, even now, you really are your own best security.  A private company no doubt would have better response times, but even they cannot be everywhere.  Nevertheless, maybe you don’t feel comfortable protecting yourself so you would be willing to pay more for a company that promised to respond to any panic calls within a certain amount of time – a promise they would be liable for if they broke, unlike your local police.

And finally, here is something that blew my mind. Despite hearing everyday about abuse by public police, there is hardly a murmer about private security force misconduct. Now I assumed this might just be because there were so few private police, but I have learned that there are almost 3 times as many private guards than public police officers in the U.S. Accountability to the company means they perform better, and abuse less.

If you feel safe, you might not have your local cop to thank after all… and these days, he’s the one making most of us feel unsafe.