Rand Paul is So Crazy, He Wants to Stop Perpetual Warfare

rand-paulSo let’s see, John McCain has some foreign policy criticisms for Rand Paul? Well Rand must be doing something right. Dick Cheney thinks Paul doesn’t understand the true threat of terrorism, adding “You’ve got folks who simply don’t want to be bothered, and it’s been a long time since 9/11,”. If only the electorate was still whipped into a scared frenzy over terrorism, then they would elect the right people.

It’s actually insane to me that Dick Cheney still speaks publicly. Is this some kind of reverse psychology strategy, because the guy must know people think he’s a villain. I just don’t get how people can keep trying the same ridiculous strategy overseas, and then have the nerve to call Rand Paul crazy when he suggests we don’t engage in endless 1984 style wars. This is not a conspiracy, the military industrial complex are welfare recipients, and will do what they have to in order to keep the cash flowing.

But somehow people believe that we need to keep fighting wars in, say, Iraq in order to keep America safe. Even as hundreds or thousands of people pour over the border every day without being checked out, putting our men and women in uniform thousands of miles away to kill terrorists is going to make us safer? How about leaving that stolen and squandered tax money in the hands of the people, because I know how to provide for my security better than my government. At least I’ll be able to choose which company is most effective, and it wouldn’t be the one charging 10x more so that they can bust down Iraqi doors until the cows come home.

It is the same as any other insane government expenditure; first it goes through the corruption machine. We have all these middlemen in DC that cannot possibly add value to our transactions, they can only siphon off wealth. They do it when it comes to providing welfare and a “safety net”, they steal from us when backing green energy, and they use funds taken by force to harass with law enforcement the same people who funded them at gunpoint. A thousand injuries we bear from our government.

The military is no different, it still wastes our wealth and delivers a sub-par product. Then the money spent on building tanks instead of being invested gets aimed at us in the form of a cannon when our local police chief gets his hands on an “urban assault vehicle”, because my friends who value ending slavery are that dangerous to the rulers.

“It’s not isolationism. It’s setting a high bar for sending our sons and daughters overseas,” said Lorne Craner, a foreign policy adviser to Paul…

Trade is not isolationist, yet how do you trade with a country that has been reduced to rubble? Growing economies is what will make the world safer, if everyone’s life is good enough so that they don’t want to murder people they never met. Right now, America is ensuring a steady stream of terrorists for years to come, by giving plenty of little boys and girls a faceless, foreign enemy to grow up hating. The enemy whose boots have literally and figuratively been on their faces for decades.

Craner, however, argued that Paul’s views are more in line with Americans who are growing increasingly distrustful after the experiences of the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and want a clearer sense of the objectives of future military actions and how they’re going to end.

And let’s not separate this from other reasons to be distrustful of our government. The same scumbags who are in charge of the IRS, DHS, EPA, FDA, and NSA are in charge of our military. The orders about auditing TEA Partiers are issued by the same person who orders drone strikes on countries we are not at war with.

The same “government will save us” philosophy that allows the EPA to trespass on our property and claim control of our water also says the U.S. can “help” Iraq, or “improve” Syria, or at least that screwing over people overseas will make third parties (us) safer. Sort of like how pro-gun folks are harassed by the government for the sake of the children. But as pro-gunners, we know it doesn’t make our children any safer to outlaw guns. That same attitude needs to be transcribed to everything the government does.

The take away is that Rand Paul can only improve things for the country by advocating a deescalation of force overseas. The example set at home is likewise a deescalation of force, and the fewer tanks the USA builds, the fewer tanks they will end up selling to your local police department who considers you a terrorist. The military has been a third rail for conservatives for a while, but it is time we treat military issues the same as any other statist, big government, safety net, welfare addled, cronyist, corrupt power orgy it is.

Whenever we get the chance to vote with our dollars instead of with politicians, I suggest we take it. If we want to keep more wealth in this nation, then at least Rand Paul is more consistent than many Republicans. Because a tax cut isn’t really a tax cut if we are still spending the money. Set the example for what a small government really looks like militarily, and there’s a good chance the rest will follow. It is not as scary as it sounds. True threats will be solved with a free market, so we cannot advocate monopolizing force militarily, at the same time we seek to combat aggressive force at home from our police, and regulatory agencies. If you have faith in anything, have faith in market solutions—you and me.

Political Transformation: Republican to Anarchist

Beliefs should be dynamic as new information comes into the picture, or more understanding is developed. Plenty of energy is put into making sure this change does not occur in politics, so that the people in power can remain in power. Sometimes they have to change what they say or how they vote in order to keep their voters, while most politicians probably don’t really change their beliefs (most seem to think they were born to be ruling elites). But for the most part, they want to retain the same voting block, and stagnant beliefs are the way to do it. That is why I want to recount my transformation in political beliefs.

I remember my parents voting for Bob Dole, and people saying they would vote for Clinton because Bob Dole would probably die in office. That was when I was in second grade, so it was funny to hear people say the same thing when McCain ran in 2008. Of course, that’s why we have Vice Presidents, but its a catchy reason to justify a vote. I wonder if people will say the say thing about Hillary who will be 69 in 2016, 3 years younger than McCain was in 2008.

Then when I was in 6th grade I remember energetically supporting Bush. From what I knew, if you voted for Republicans, government would shrink, taxes would go down, and there would be more freedom. It would be cute if it wasn’t so sad! But I was 12 years old and that was my understanding. Democrats just wanted to raise taxes, take our guns, and make more laws.

And Republican I remained for many years, registering as one when I turned 18, even though most of my family are independent. Still I grew up being told to never trust government, and generally I thought Republicans would take government out of my life. By this time I understood that there were mysterious creatures called RINOs, Republicans In Name Only. McCain was a RINO because he took away free speech rights when he teamed up with Feingold.

But you gotta vote for the lesser of two evils, right? So I swallowed hard and voted for McCain in 2008 so that Obama couldn’t “spread the wealth around”. And at least McCain was a veteran who loved his country…right?

I was already essentially libertarian in mindset, it just took a while for me to realize Republicans were not. This thing I believed about how Republicans would lower taxes and shrink government, except for a few RINO exceptions… nope. It was vice versa. There were a few good Republicans who fit the definition I believed, which was just libertarian. So I gravitated towards Ron Paul because he was the real deal, wanting to end the Fed, and free the market. Free markets seemed, and still do, so obviously beneficial to me.

And with Ron Paul’s message I continued down the path to a libertarian mindset, beginning to realize the wars we fight overseas are not national defense, they don’t keep us safe, and they are inconsistant. If we are saving oppressed people, well then there were 500 more countries we should invade. If we are keeping America safe, well why is North Korea still around? It didn’t make sense and I began to say, close the bases, bring them home, defend our country. Big Navy, put them on the borders, let the rest of the world see how it does without the U.S.

The military thing was a tough one to let go of, because it is often the main cheer for the Republican team. It was much easier to get on board with things like ending the drug war and gay rights (rather, abolishing the recognition of any marriage by the government, because the less control the better). And with a consistent mindset, I was never confused on an issue, it was simple: does this grow or shrink government? Does this give them more control or less control? Are they intervening in the economy or not?

This came along with Ayn Rand, and the non-agression principle, that you should not initiate force against another. But Ayn Rand still thought you needed some government, and had some justification for it, even though she claimed to believe fully in that no one has the right to initiate force. Except the government, just a little, on a small scale? That didn’t make much sense. But what was the alternative? It must just be a matter of designing the perfect government to remain small. America came close, but if we could just tweak a few things in the Constitution, we would forever be able to limit government… with a piece of paper. In college I even began to design a new government, based on the Constitution but with different mechanisms to keep the voters in control and the government decentralized.

In 2012 I wouldn’t do it again, vote for the lesser of two evil. I voted for Gary Johnson because at least then it was a protest vote, sort of like none of the above (even though I did actually like Gary Johnson). Still a piece of me hoped Romney would win, because at least the country would go downhill at a slower pace. People would pretend Fascist and Socialist were opposite ends of the political spectrum, but that’s not true. It’s Dictators, Monarchies, Fascist, and Socialist at one end, and Anarchy at the other.

I knew I was on the Anarchy side, but hadn’t taken the plunge because I was scared of the chaos that would surely result from having no government. Can you imagine, just us animals running around wild! We see how humans act, so what if they weren’t held in check by the law? Little did I understand that I was putting the cart before the horse. This is how humans act because of the government, and the examples it sets. Murder, kidnapping, assault, theft could all be justified because when the government did it, it was okay. So why Isn’t it okay if I do it?

And in 2013 at PorcFest I finally got my answer of how it would work in an anarcho-capitalist society. When used synonymously with free-market, capitalism is an ideal. Just free trade, no limitations on voluntary agreements between two individuals. David Friedman made me realize that if there is a market for something it will be provided. And as I knew was the case for health, currency, food safety, economics etcetera, markets would likewise deliver roads and security better and more efficiently than a monopoly on force, because the businesses would have to respond to their customers’.

The market forces would regulate these things, and since everyone wouldn’t choose the same business, competition would keep them honest and cheap. We are the regulators, the market, and without government serving as blocker, we are better equipped to make decisions about where we put our money and how the services should be delivered. We can vote with out dollars, because our votes for politicians don’t matter. That is an ineffective check on government power, and an inefficient means of providing the change in systems that would be demanded by customers if it were a business delivering the services, who must turn a profit to remain.

But no one really talked about how to get there, to a society without force, so I thought about it. I came up with a peaceful method to strive for and put a presentation together for PorcFest this year (I will post the video when it is available). It involved transitioning through the legislative process, shrinking government, and finally abolishing it slowly with time for the market to give rise to alternatives to any desired services the government previously monopolized and extracted money by force to pay for.

And after I gave my talk, another possibility was introduced to me for the transition, also peacefully, to a society without the monopolization of force, and without “legal” coercion. Opt out. Find enough people like you who you can live peacefully in a community with, and opt out. When the tax man comes to take you away, inform him that you do no desire, nor require their “services”, will not use them, and refuse to pay for them. Alone, they will come for you with guns and cage you, maybe kill you if you resist the kidnapping. But there is strength in numbers, not only in one community, but in groups of communities.

I was lucky enough to have my family come with me on the transition. With the way I was taught how to learn, not what to learn, it was natural that at some point my parents would learn from me, and they were open minded enough to do so. Then I would learn a little more from them. Then them from me. We, along with my siblings and cousins, would leap frog in our ideas about government. Every time someone learned something new, or adopted a new attitude or idea, it was discussed, with the foundation agreement on the non-agression principle. Each of us didn’t just want to be “right” and have everyone believe our version of whatever, we sought truth, and in doing so were able to adopt what made sense, and abandon the fallacies.

I’m not going to say this is the end of my journey, there should never be an end to finding truth, to learning, to discovering the best way to live. I want to free the population, I am against human slavery, in all its forms. But this is how I went from being a slave feuding with a rival slave faction, to a self aware slave, trying to bring all the other slaves together and resist out violent masters.

Human Power Imbalance Causes Poverty and War

Imbalance of human power could be pinpointed as a major cause of human suffering. When power is lopsided, for instance because of Kings, Emperors, or Dictators, what we often see is war, poverty, and genocide. Throughout history strong-men have risen to conquer, and subjugate. They had more physical power than others, and this imbalance was expressed through war and enslavement. Peace and growth are things that occur when each individual’s power is balanced with his or her peers.

This would mean that each human has individual power over their own circumstances; they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When there are not arbitrary rules set by governments, this gives balance to power. When any particular person, or any particular group of people cannot use force to compel others against their will, balance occurs. As soon as control is taken out of individuals’ hands, the human power imbalance rears its ugly head, and society is disrupted by one form of man made disaster or another.

A monopoly on force is by nature an imbalance of power. If government is allowed to initiate force without recourse for the victim, this is an obvious asymmetry of power. It is argued that we need this inequality in order to better organize society, but there are always losers in this dynamic. Some will sit for decades in prison because those who wielded a monopoly on force decided that marijuana was bad. Some owe tens of thousands in fines to the EPA because extra-judicial power was given to an unelected body which now makes up rules without democratic ratification. Businessmen have been convicted of crimes without victims under anti-trust laws, sat in prison, or killed themselves on the way. We may feel like we live in a just society, but only if you ignore the casualties of power imbalance. You can read about them every day in the news when police officers shoot innocent people to death with impunity.

Some say, sure a few people get the short end of the stick, but society as a whole is better when some people have more power than others. Many will argue that inherent inequality, as in, people having to follow arbitrary rules of government,  actually helps balance society. Well these arguments are all theory, because we have never actually tried true equality; we have never seen a society where everyone is equal, and no one has inherent power over another.

No society has existed without some form of governing body that in the end gets to use force without retaliation, because of some sort of coalition they have formed. What I mean by coalition, is that even when an individual has nothing personally to gain by initiating force in the name of their superior, they will do it because of the imbalance of power. Neither they, nor their victim have the power to retaliate against the governors, and therefore the victims of the power imbalance become the soldier acting on behalf of the governors, and the civilian victim who the governors wish to initiate force against.

Coalitions to respond to the initiation of force are a form of balanced power, since one would have no power to exert his authority at will, only to respond to a violation of their rights. Agreements between individuals for mutual benefit would give them help in exercising their rights when another victimizes them.

So if the argument against free interactions absent of force (where people must come to agreement or go their separate ways peacefully) are all theory, then so must my argument be that this equality and balance of individual power would lead to more peace and stability. And in so much as I have no pure example to show the benefits of a society organized without government, the argument is indeed theory. But I would ask on what basis does the theory rest that we need some authority to have more power; that some people inherently must have less power, and somehow this inequality leads to peace and prosperity?

This argument can only be based on examples of governments under which peace and prosperity have occurred. When these examples are taken in a vacuum, it does seem that one could argue government was a benefit. But when these examples are compared to examples of societies with more poverty and war, government is a constant, and must be taken into account as such. We then see that smaller less intrusive government without arbitrary power over individuals characterized the peaceful and prosperous examples, and larger government with more centralized and arbitrary power gave way to war and poverty. The larger the imbalance of power, the more human suffering occurs. And monopolies on some power have always given way to more power.

It is also necessary to separate peace and prosperity. Relative prosperity for the time was achieved under Genghis Khan, yet it would be tough to argue that peace was also achieved. And relative peace has occurred under particular tribes, but no such prosperity in terms of increase in the quality of life was ever really achieved (and though a lengthy discussion could be had on whether the quality of life of these tribal peoples was actually “better”, for our intents and purposes I will use shorter life spans, higher child mortality, and lack of material comforts as a benchmark for “lower quality of life”).

Some examples of huge imbalances of power would be Dictatorships like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China where the state had way more power than the individual, and tens of millions of people were murdered. The Inquisition carried out by the Catholic church was the result of the religious leaders gaining too much power over individuals, and resulted in widespread torture and death.

On the other hand, the quality of life in Great Britain steadily rose over the centuries after King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, stripping ultimate power from the King and distributing it among the feudal barons. Gradually Lords spread this power to their underlings, because it was in their best economic interest to do so, and as the individual had more control over his own affairs, Great Britain became prosperous and peaceful compared to the centuries before the Magna Carta was signed.

Then the tradition of the common people having rights was taken even further, and government was even more limited (power was even more balanced) by the Constitution in America. The wealth of individuals and quality of life in America exploded as power was arguably the most balanced in human history. But over the centuries the government centralized, and control of the individual eroded so that we are now at risk of seeing the first decline in quality of life since the country’s birth, even though America is still one of the freest societies in terms of personal liberty.

Believe it or not we are living in probably the most peaceful period in human history, and we got here because the natural rights philosophy which founded our country with the Constitution went the furthest of any society in creating true equality between individuals (even though it took some time for that philosophy to be put into practice, as in ending slavery).

But we risk throwing away all the prosperity and peace that has been achieved simply because we continue to allow centralization of authority and more government control. This means fewer and fewer people must consent before we are thrust into war, and that individuals have less control over their own economic outcome. The imbalance of power has made war more likely with just a few individuals able to involve millions in their wars, and has limited the personal gain that can be enjoyed by working hard, since the government has power over a growing percentage of resources individuals earn.

We have not yet allowed the imbalance of power to get to the tipping point which will throw humanity back into widespread poverty and war, but you must remember that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A little imbalance between elites and civilians might take a while to show especially if we ignore the daily examples of victims of that imbalance, though in America still relatively few and far between.

The easier examples to see of unrest caused by inequality of power are in other countries like Egypt, Syria, and Libya where power has been lopsided for quite some time. It should be obvious that the less arbitrary control people have over each other, the more balanced power is, the better society is as a whole, and for the individual.

The best society would see equal inherent power of each individual; anyone who initiates force can expect to be met with force, and anyone who has force initiated against them is free to respond with force. This method of societal organization creates a market for justice when force is initiated, and will therefore make initiating force a bad personal decision in terms of the outcome for the individual, and therefore this balance of power will lead to more peace, and more prosperity.

Wars are Started by Governments

droneIts amusing but sad that people always seem to come from the same perspective for “solving problems”. Everybody wants to use a top down approach when dealing with borders. People just assume that we need to group people together, even if they don’t like it! So in the U.S. we have parts of Colorado that want to form a new state, we see a piece of California trying to secede, and Texas was once its own country, and entered into the U.S.A. from the position that it could leave if the population so desired. The Kurds never really wanted to be part of Iraq, and borders within the United Kingdom have shifted countless times over the past 2,000 years. So we see these problems and think, how do we divide up who controls this land? But control is the very problem.

I think a hundred years from now people will look back on the debate about whether or not part of Colorado or California or whole states should be allowed to do their own thing, and laugh because of how ridiculous it seems that anyone would try to force people to remain under their jurisdiction, like subjects or serfs. I hope the prevailing notion of that day a century from now will be that of course people have the freedom to move as they like, associate as they like, and live as they like, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.

Because isn’t that really the issue, that governments want to force people under their control? If the Kurds hadn’t been stuck between Iraq and a hard place, they could have just continued their society and lived their lives in relative peace. But Iraq and Iran made promises, broke their promises, lied, and Saddam Hussein gassed an entire city of “his people”. They couldn’t just be left alone?

Or how ridiculous that Denver or Sacramento want to hold onto their population in the outer districts in order for the capital to extract money and labor to fund the government programs, expenditures, and extravagance which mostly takes place in the capital. I think there is a book like that…

Then there’s Crimea, and Palestine, and Israel and it has never occurred that people don’t need to be controlled, or told what to do, or where the borders are, or to whom they are supposed to pay protection money—or taxes if you prefer. It seems immature as a species that whole groups of people routinely use their military strength to force others into their way of life, or their way of thinking, or within their borders.

Who would fight wars if not for governments? Who would enforce borders, and collect taxes, and make up laws that you can lose your life and liberty for breaking, even if there is no victim? Here’s the thing: the guy that starts the war, never fights in it. Sure, sometimes he overplays his hand and kills himself in a bunker, or gets hanged or slaughtered by his own people, but these are more like exceptions to the rule. So in whose best interest is a war? Tell me, who is going to start a war, and who is going to fight a war, if we don’t have government relations to sour, and government force to muster, and government controlled populations to enslave?

War is only in the best interest of those who have something to gain from it, and nothing to lose from it. Only those who can use force without retribution are in that position, and only governments can use force without retribution. Who would be sending men off to die if people were truly free from the initiation of force? What mutually beneficial transaction includes death and destruction?

I’m not going to get into right now how a society could be organized without government, I’ve written enough about that to give you a good idea. I just want people to reflect on the dynamic that we have always seen on earth, governments starting wars with governments and pretending it is in the best interest of the people: the people who die on the battlefield so that the government can say, “see, this is the border” or “these are my subjects” or “no, no, this set of victimless crimes is legitimate, theirs was not!”. And yes, we have certainly had better governments than others; the American government as defined in the Constitution was pretty good, but not perfect.

I once thought of ways to design the perfect government, with the perfect restraints, and checks on its power. I thought of ways to design elections, to form opposing powers, and to decentralize control. This is the “government is evil but necessary” philosophy. Then it occurred to me that nothing evil should ever be necessary. Why keep a beast in your house that would devour you if its chains are too loose, or break?

Would a lion be a great deterrent to crime at your home? Yes, but it might also eat you and your family. A big dog can be just as good a deterrent to crime, and you have control over it. Your dog loves you because you feed it and pat it; you trade food and affection for protection. Protection that will never be turned on you and your family, even though your dog can go anywhere in the house. The lion you feed so that it doesn’t eat you, and it dictates where you can safely walk in your own home. And the lion provides protection only if its chain is long enough, which also puts you in danger. But if the chain is too short, it won’t be able to stop an intruder.

Right now we are a society of lion keepers, and we should be a society of dog owners.

Most People Are Pro-Slavery

anarchoI’m against slavery. That sounds pretty obvious; most of us think we’re against slavery. But almost every person on earth actually supports slavery. This is because almost every person on earth thinks we need government. So by definition, almost every person on earth thinks we need, at least a little, slavery.

Government is the monopolization of the initiation of force in a particular area. But it takes money to monopolize force, so money is extracted from the working population involuntarily and called taxes. We all must work for our money, a portion of which we are forced to hand over to government. And what do you call it when someone is forced to labor for another? Ah-hem, I believe that is called slavery.

The protest: “but the government provides us with services like roads, protection, and a safety net”. Slave owners have always provided their slaves with a shack to live in and scraps to eat. The mafia has long provided “protection” to businesses under their jurisdiction, and extorted the money to pay for it.

Even conceding that we need a little government is conceding that we need a little slavery. You are saying, we need force in order for society to work properly. Once this point is conceded the argument becomes how much force is properly applied to effectively run society. That is why conceding that we need any government means you have lost the debate against the initiation of force. You cannot simultaneously believe the initiation of force is never okay and believe government is okay–unless you’re practiced in doublethink.

Initiating force is immoral (in contrast to responding to force initiated against you); it essentially matches the golden rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. How can we need something immoral, no matter how limited, in order to make the world run properly? The world would be best if no initiation of force was justified by “the system” or considered legitimate. So join me in my desire to end slavery once and for all, and abolish government in favor of free market organization of society.

To begin exploring the ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism, check out my posts Anarcho Capitalism, Without Government Who Would Build the Roads?, True Utopia: Communism versus Anarcho-Capitalism (Part I), and True Utopia: Communism versus Anarcho-Capitalism (Part II).

For anyone who is open to new ideas, and actually solving many problems humanity faces, the system of anarcho-capitalism is certainly intriguing enough to learn about and consider. It is unhealthy that most people never even think about a system without government; we’ve accepted as a premise that we as a society “need” government. Studying anarcho-capitalism is simply the practice of checking that premise, which I would argue, is a false assertion.

No Victim, No Crime

In my posts, I can be a bit hard on cops sometimes. This is because with great power comes great responsibility. Police are often in rough situations, and see the worst of the world on a daily basis, which can mess with anyone’s head to some extent. So today instead of simply criticizing the actions of more cops who shot innocent people, or violated their rights of freedom of speech and to be secure in their persons, I want to offer a solution. It’s so simple, and no one should have a problem with this: no victim, no crime.

So think about a lot of these instances of police abuse you hear. They start with expired tags, or with the refusal to show ID to a cop, or with twenty-somethings filming the police. The police as it currently stands feel their responsibilities cover “crimes” that have no victim, like insuring registration on cars is paid. In these respects they are little more than enforcers to ensure the state gets paid their “protection money”… because wouldn’t it be terrible if something happened to that nice shiny car of yours?

The solution is, a cop cannot intervene at all when there is no crime, defining crime as requiring a victim. Expired tags? Oh well, the state is not a victim if the money is extorted in the first place: withholding something that someone wants to take from you is not victimizing the state, it is refusing to be victimized (kind of like shooting someone in self defense who breaks into your house).

This wouldn’t eliminate all police brutality, but it would be a good start. Then there would be no dispute about whether police acted appropriately when shooting or brutalizing unarmed victims who had been stopped for jaywalking, or an ill placed traffic cone, or buying water, or reaching for a cane, or peaceful protesting, or not showing ID, or being dazed after a brutal car accident, or hanging out on a campsite they rented,  etcetera.

There was no crime in all these cases, so the police would never have had any authority to even detain or force any of these people to talk to them. All these victims would still be alive or unmolested and unscarred from their run-ins with police, enforcing a law that has no victim to protect.

If common law boiled down to the non-initiation of force principle, things would be safer for police and for peasants—I mean civilians. Cops wouldn’t have to be trigger happy with innocent people, able to use the excuse, “I want to get home at the end of the night”. The only people that would be confronted would at least be suspected of a crime that had a victim, which would mean far fewer people ever having to deal with the police.

Did this person initiate force against another? If yes, the police get involved. If no, the police go on their merry way. And if the police initiate the force without a victim, well then they have violated the law like anyone else. The badge does not negate the possibility of victimizing another.

This would also mean we could free up a lot of resources. For one, you don’t need as many police, lawyers, and judges when the only people going through the system have victimized someone, versus expired licenses, smoking pot, or “resisting arrest” (and the only reason I mention resisting arrest as a victimless crime is because it always baffled me how someone could get arrested just for resisting arrest. After all, what were they being arrested for that made them resist arrest? And if they are only being charged with resisting arrest, that means there was no original crime to be charged with, and therefore resisting arrest was appropriate, as in “why am I being arrested if I have not committed a crime?”… “STOP RESISTING”).

We would also need fewer people to write laws, because they wouldn’t be able to make anything criminal if there was no victim, and everything that includes a victim is already criminal under the common law of, “No one may initiate force against another”. And they say there’s no room for budget cuts! But as it stands victimless crimes serve as an excuse for cops to abuse their power.

Indiana Law Allows Deadly Force Against Police who Invade a Home Without a Warrant

wvpI’m going to clear this up right at the beginning because I can already see the comments being furiously typed: I am against shooting police officers. I am also against the initiation of force, and believe people must be allowed to protect themselves when someone unrightfully initiates force against them. Furthermore I don’t believe that anyone in a civilized society should be “above the law” or have special privileges. So if someone breaks into your home, I believe it is completely just to be able to shoot the intruder, since you do not know their intentions and have got to assume the worst if they are breaking in while the home owner is present. For this reason I see no difference between shooting an unlawful intruder in jeans, or an unlawful intruder with a blue suit and a badge.

The supreme court of Indiana seemed to think there was a difference between people unlawfully intruding into homes. For some reason, the court ruled that a person is not allowed to fight back against a police officer acting illegally. Again, I’m not the type to think its okay for a particular person or group of people to get special treatment, especially when that treatment puts other people’s lives and property in danger. What is the problem with police officers having a warrant before entering a home?

That is required by the Constitution under the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects individuals from oppressive government. This law just clarifies what everyone who believes individuals have rights already knew: that the Second amendment gives all the other amendments teeth. What’s the point of having the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the requirement of law enforcement to have a warrant before entering your home, if you don’t have the same rights to refuse a government official entry as any other unlawful intruder?

Indiana passed a law that allows people to shoot a police officer unlawfully entering their home, the same rights that were already on the book allowing people to shoot any other intruder into their home. This changes nothing. You are still not allowed to shoot cops. You are allowed to shoot criminals entering your home. When a police officer enters your home by force without a warrant, he is committing a crime. Why should your right to protect yourself be contingent on who the offender is? It shouldn’t, and now in Indiana, it isn’t.

“There are bad legislators,” the law’s author, State Senator R. Michael Young (R) tells Bloomberg News. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”

Governor Daniels agrees with the senator in a statement offered through his office, and notes that the law is only being established to cover rare incidents of police abuse that can escape the system without reprimand for officers or other persons that break the law to gain entry.

“In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels says. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.”

Law enforcement from the state on the other hand have said they believe “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.” The only possibility of someone getting away with killing a cop under this law, is if the cop is acting in an illegal manner in the same way that could get any one of us killed. Any police officer that does not violate people’s rights should not be bothered by this law, as it will not affect them.

This is nipping a problem in the bud. There are not very many cases, relatively speaking, especially in Indiana, where police officers unlawfully enter a home. But now there is legal recourse to protect your home against any initiation of force–the very reason for much of the Bill of Rights, designed specifically to keep government officials from abusing their power. With great power comes great responsibility, so it only makes sense that shirking that responsibility should yield the same results as it would yield a criminal who doesn’t happen to have a badge.

Furthermore, every person who owns a uniform and a badge is not really a police officer. Less than a month ago in LA 3 home invaders posed as police officers to gain entry into a home with 2 women and three children, some of whom were tied up before the house was ransacked. For this reason, any police officer entering a home forcefully without a warrant should be assumed to be just as dangerous as a home invader in a ski mask. The reason this tactic currently works is because people are afraid not to comply with police orders. That’s why this legislation is important, to ensure that people have the tools they need to fight back against home invaders, whether they are posing as police or are actual police without warrants.

[On a side note, another home invasion listed in the article involved robbers fleeing without stealing anything or hurting anyone when the home owner fired at them with his handgun. In contrast ““America Next Top Model” director James Marcus Howe, 42, was fatally shot during a home invasion after a gunman knocked at his door posing as a solicitor, LAPD officials said.” Furthermore, most of the home invasions involved multiple suspects, another reason why a person might need more than ten rounds in a magazine, or a more powerful and accurate firearm to protect themselves, their family, and their property. This adds to the anecdotal evidence that supports the quantitative evidence in the CDC report that found guns are used more often (and effectively) in self defense than in crimes.]

This new law just keeps honest men honest. Anyone who believes in the benefits of individual freedom, natural rights, and the protections in the Bill of Rights should be thrilled by Indiana’s most recent development in protecting individuals from government overreach.

Listen Here: “Under the Gun” on WMRC Radio

Last Saturday I discussed politics on “Under the Gun” with host Harry, creator of Firearmsadvantage.com. We talked about the immorality of initiating force, and how the government uses force through legislation and agencies. We discuss examples of government force, and how the government has moved from protecting the products of our labor, to being the main threat to production. And of course, being a show about guns, you’ll learn a thing or two about firearms. Listen below for a healthy dose of political news and gun knowledge.

“How do we get big money out of politics? We get big money out of government…. If there is no trough to feed off of, then there will be no animals coming to the trough.”


Grounding Your World-View: Initiating Force is Immoral

On the surface there are obviously many political disagreements people have, but this all goes back to how issues are framed. These differences in opinion go down deeper to differences in world-views. I believe that politicians and people in power these days spend a lot of energy trying to frame the debate in their terms, but it can be enlightening to back up far enough to examine the roots of what we believe.

Everything you consume has been produced by someone or multiple someones. This may sound obvious, but it is a key fact that many do not seem to understand. People talk about free this and that coming from government, but there is nothing free. Somebody put in the mental effort, physical labor or a combination of the two to get you what you want and need.

To believe it is your “right” to have something another person has produced, is to believe it is your “right” to enslave that person for whatever period it takes them to make the thing to which you are “entitled to”. This is obvious when not framed in a style that gets politicians reelected. Your neighbor cuts 500 logs for the winter. Is it your right to some of those logs, since everyone needs to be warm for the winter? Or is it your personal responsibility to find your own source of warmth? In an advanced economy, you don’t need a saw and wedge to get firewood, you can trade your labor for it. But realize that your labor is what will keep you warm, not some “right”..

Rights exist with or without society. Born alone in the woods, I would have the right (though not necessarily the ability) to defend myself from any aggressor. I would have the right to pursue (though not necessarily achieve) happiness. I would have the right to say what I want, and do whatever I want that does not violate another’s right.

Do I have the right to food? No, food must be provided. In order to get food I must find it, grow it, hunt it, or obtain it in some other way. This world is no different, other than the fact that there are billions of people who we can try to get to do our work for us. But we must not insist that it is our right for things to be provided for us. What about the right of the person who provides it? If your supposed “right” to food trumps their actual right to freedom, they are indeed quite literally your slave.

We hear a lot about “greedy” CEO’s these days who work for companies with “obscene” profit margins which make a select few “filthy” rich. You’ve heard all those terms, because the debate, and many of our world-views, have been formed and influenced by politicians who will benefit from this paradigm.

Imagine going to your grocery store to buy food, and seeing a sign on the door: “This company has repented, fired the CEO,  and given away its profits to the poor. Unfortunately some shipments have not arrived, and others have gone bad before being received and displayed. Try again later, we might have some food for you to buy”. Preposterous! It is our right to be fed! Meaning, someone else does not have the right to deny laboring for my benefit. Someone else must organize and serve as the middleman between the farmer and the store shelves, but he shouldn’t make too much money.

Do people not realize that the only ones getting paid more than what they are worth, are connected in one way or another to government? You cannot consistently get paid more than you are worth in a free market. Only with the government, and access to their force can a person get paid with the fruits of another’s labor, without having labored equally in another field.

There was a time when no person on earth could perform successful brain surgery. Today there are many people who have worked hard to acquire the skills to perform brain surgery. They trade their labor for the things they need, and their labor is worth enough to their peers that others may need to labor for a week in order to produce enough to trade for an hour of the surgeon’s skill. This is unequal, but it is not unfair. If no one had the skills to perform brain surgery, how would you enforce your “right” to healthcare in that case? But since there are people who can perform brain surgery, can we consider it our right to get the surgery, regardless of whether or not we have labored to produce enough to trade?

To force the doctor to perform a surgery for less than his skills are worth (in a free trade, mutually beneficial transaction) means that the doctor is your slave, working only for the benefit of you, and not for himself. But there is a reason full-fledged slaves have only historically been used for menial work; that is the extent of what can be produced at the end of a whip. For labor worth more than menial work which essentially anyone could do, incentives are needed. You can use force all you want, but just see what happens when a slave is told to do brain surgery.

When your tire pops, and you labor for 2 hours in order to trade that labor for a new tire (which someone else labored to create) there is no force involved, you both benefit: you got a new tire, the other person got rewarded for their tire making skills, and will trade that reward for something he needs. When the government says your car has not passed inspection, and require $1200 of work to fix a leak you didn’t notice and has no negative effect on you or anyone else, that is force. You must labor for a week at the crack of a whip in order to fix the car that you did not decide needed to be fixed, you were told it needed to be fixed. The consequence for not complying with this force is eventually a fine (forced labor to earn the money to pay it) or jail (armed men come and force  you into a cell which you cannot leave).

When you go to a fast food restaurant and say, I’ll trade you my burger making skills for so many dollars per hour, there is no force involved, it benefits you and the fast food joint. When you go to the government and say I want my labor to be rewarded more, and the government says the fast food joint needs to pay more, that is force. Until the fast food restaurant is dragging you out of your home to work at gun point behind the grill, they are not the ones “forcing” anyone to do anything, whether it is work for them, or buy from them. Without using the government, it is impossible for a private company or individual to legitimately use force (if they did it would be extortion, as in, the Mafia). If an individual initiates force against us, we are still able in most cases to respond with force.

A good exercise to simplify the debate, and ground your world-view would be to ask yourself if a policy involves the initiation of force, or not. If government was only in the business of responding to the initiation of force, we would be confronted with few serious issues that we face today. Unfortunately as you consider bills, regulations, and government policy, you will find that the government today is a main initiator of force, and with a monopoly that size on the “legitimate” use of force, it leaves us with no option but to bow down and accept the immoral initiation of force; essentially accept that we are slaves. If something cannot be accomplished through a mutually beneficial agreement, then it has no business being accomplished at all.