EDITORIAL, International Real Estate
The Reason Police Brutality Is Rising
By Wendy McElroy - November 28, 2013

A headline in Mint Press News (Nov. 6) declared, "U.S. Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11." An earlier Mint article (Aug. 19) reported, "Claims of Minneapolis Police Misconduct: 439; Officers Disciplined: 0." It is almost cliché to talk about an epidemic of police brutality or the militarization of police departments. But what is occurring is a more intricate and interesting social dynamic than mere brute force.

In his magnum opus, Man, Economy, and State, Murray Rothbard broke the ways in which the state controls people into three categories.

Autistic intervention. The state directly restricts an individual's use of his body or property. For example, a man is arrested for possessing drugs. Even if more than one person is arrested at the same time, the line of force runs directly from the state to each individual. No exchange occurs. It is the application of brute force, pure and simple.

Binary intervention. The state directly confronts an individual in order to force the exchange of a good or service. For example, a person is sent a property tax assessment on his house or he is conscripted into the military. The line of force is still the individual but a coerced exchange occurs to the benefit of the state.

Triangular intervention. The state uses the force of law to determine the manner in which two people can make an exchange. For example, an employer must hire someone at a minimum wage. Rothbard further divides triangular intervention into "price control, which deals with the terms of an exchange, and product control, which deals with the nature of the product or of the producer." The line of force is aimed at the two people involved, one of whom may benefit from the government's intervention.

Each form of intervention constitutes a transfer or redistribution within society. Even the autistic intervention transfers power to the state and to the people in society who want drug addicts put away. All three types of force are intimately related and interactive. For one thing, all state power ultimately rests on autistic intervention or its threat. That is, the state's final recourse to compel compliance is to lay hands directly upon an individual and take control of his person and property. Brute force underlies even the driest, most bureaucratic triangular intervention.

Generally speaking, however, a state prefers to avoid the use of brute force. It will directly attack those for whom the average person has no sympathy or patience, such as drug addicts. But a prudent state will avoid inflicting direct violence upon the man on the street because it relies upon some level of cooperation from him. The state does not want average people to view it as an enemy to be resisted or evaded. So why are the police now acting like a military force that is occupying the streets of an enemy nation?

A main reason for the increase in police violence is because average people are beginning to understand that all of society's forced exchanges (binary and triangular interventions) are rigged. This has not been as obvious before, especially with triangular intervention. The farther the state moves away from direct force, the less apparent it is to the average person that any force is occurring at all. Everyone recognizes a policeman kicking a helpless man on the ground as brutality; few people recognize inflation as the economic equivalent. This is changing. The triangular interventions are becoming widely viewed as scams through which government and its cronies are feasting on the productive sector of society. They are feasting so richly that the children and grandchildren of the productive sector are confronted with wage slavery to sustain the gluttony.

The 19th century classical liberal Frédéric Bastiat described government as "that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." In his remarkable essay "What is Seen and What is Unseen," Bastiat argued: "The advantages which officials advocate are those which are seen. The benefit which accrues to the providers is still that which is seen. This blinds all eyes." The blind eyes do not see the injury caused by the benefit. "When an official spends for his own profit an extra hundred sous, it implies that a tax-payer spends for his profit a hundred sous less. But the expense of the official is seen, because the act is performed, while that of the tax-payer is not seen, because, alas! he is prevented from performing it."

The problem now confronting government is that the unseen is becoming visible. The damage done by 'services' like Obamacare has become as evident to people as the social security check in their hands. Cronyism has become so blatant that government does not even bother to hide the raw privileges it grants, such as health care exemptions for unions. The triangular interventions through which government controls social and economic interaction are being seen for what they are: sophisticated versions of brute force and plunder. Politicians are being seen for who they are: arrogant elites who care nothing about the average person and cannot even lie about it convincingly.

The great fiction of government is imploding. What is left is the great reality; namely that all government intervention rests upon coercion.

The intimate relationship between the three forms of intervention is in motion. As average people begin to see triangular intervention for the fraud it is, law enforcement will increase its use of direct force to compel obedience and to create a fear of authority to fill the vacuum where respect used to be. The rise in police brutality against average people is proportionate to the loss of trust with which those people now view all government intervention.

It is a vicious circle, of course. The more brutality occurs, the less trust there is. And law enforcement's willingness to taser children, shoot unarmed civilians and gang-bludgeon unresisting people is an ominous sign. It means they are no longer reluctant to be "seen."

Posted in EDITORIAL, International Real Estate
  • Bill Ross

    …morning Wendy…

    WM: “The Reason Police Brutality Is Rising”

    …is because the police, like virtually all of our social / economic institutions have been subverted, corrupted and co-opted in service of those whom rely on force / fraud (criminal predations) to achieve their goals. The only viable prey is the productive, whom have zero alternative but to react to assaults on peaceful, mutually agreed division of labor (AKA: civilization), reducing productivity, which is diverted to defense:


    when ability to survive by peaceful trade is not possible or reduced, the choice is not survive, or, defense which spawns an increase in force and/or fraud (reaction) by self-alleged “authority”.

    long term, as the collective (self-interest) choices of the “unseen hand” integrate to “starving the leach”, pawns within the executive, having witnessed the discarding of many peers (budget constraints) and moral disgust at what their masters consider “necessary”, will adopt the sane position of “self-interest, no allegiance to authority”, and either stand down and refuse to point OUR weapons at their fellow citizens, or, join the resistance and re-orient OUR weapons 180 degrees, to the REAL perps.

    no matter the issue, they are losing. The rising terror of elites is very apparent and palatable. Thanks to the internet reformation, they have lost the initiative and are unable to be proactive, just reactive and, the corner they have painted (lied) themselves into is getting smaller and smaller. They are cornered, feral beasts (barbarians), very dangerous, since, as they so correctly stated, “its either us, or them”, a symmetrical truth.

    • RIC54

      I like reading your comments you are a very intelligent and articulate person.

      • Bill Ross

        Thanks, mixed “blessing”, makes me a natural enemy of both those whom pretend the same and, manipulated dogmatists whom are not.

        I am living the fate that my late, not so bright stepmother predicted: “you are too smart for your own good”. To which I always and still respond: “I’ll be the judge of whats good for me”.

    • Morning to you, Bill. I echo RIC54’s comment. But I do have one point of disagreement, which actually pleases me because we usually agree down the line on issues. You write, “the police…have been subverted, corrupted and co-opted in service of those whom rely on force.” My disagreement: your statement seems to assume that the police once performed a valid, valuable service to society, which has been corrupted. I believe a private police force could and would perform a valid, valuable service but I do not believe the centuries old tax-funded, government-employed police force *ever* was valid. It was always a standing threat to civil liberties. The threat has increased exponentially just as the state has increased exponentially. But the core nature of the police force as agents of the state has remained the same. That’s why the further corrupting occurred so quickly and without much internal resistance.

      • Bill Ross

        “the police…have been subverted, corrupted and co-opted in service of those whom rely on force.”

        may be semantics, you are correct regarding the purpose / nature of the institution(s). IMHO, the vast majority of people whom enter public service do so because they believe “the meme”. Their careers are just the coercive forces (carrots / sticks) within the power hiearchy slowly, but surely trapping / corrupting them. People should be VERY careful whom and what they associate with. Once “the state” is forced to reneg on pensions, all bets off.

        perhaps I am an optimist, but, in my decades long war against “the state”, I have met some very decent slaves, including police and judges trapped within the system whom have, when possible, at minimal risk to themselves, cut me some slack.

        I will go so far as to state that, there are members of the system rooting for me, and, on rare occasions, have helped me to refine my work / perspective. There is a growing constitutioncy, within states, whom are changing allegiance and, if they can make it appear to be “$hit happens”, sabotaging. Not all perceived “incompetence” actually IS.

        • Agents of the state are not necessarily bad people. I’d never argue that. But their good intentions or good character elsewhere do not matter. As long as they perform their function as agents of the state, they will produce oppression despite occasional acts of decency. (I understand we agree on this point this fully.) So I generally stay away from assassinating the character of civil servants — e.g. all kindergarten teachers are evil oppressors and running-dogs to totalitarianism! — because the character of civil servants is not the point. The point it to discredit and disable the institutions which define the results that define the results that will be produced even by “decent” agents of the state.

          • Bill Ross

            so, hate to “disappoint”:) you, once again, we are in total agreement. Better luck next time.

          • Bill Ross

            re the “e.g.”

            what you REALLY think and believe (and, perhaps, ridicule) may have been revealed, or, a feint?

            anyway, thanks for the chatting. You pick such interesting topics that a self Pavlov conditioned person cannot help but react to.

          • LOL, Bill. I was being over-the-top with my kindergarten example. Rather like calling the bored postal worker “a mastermind of evil complicity.” I generally avoid dealing with personalities and personal motives. It gets too psycho-babbly for me.

          • Marten

            The State acts as a dream Killer!!! To kill freedom is to kill the Essence of what makes us Human

      • robertsgt40

        Not so sure about the private police force angle. The prison system is increasingly going private/corporate. Once we’ve lost the rule of law and accountability, it doesn’t make much difference who’s at the helm. Jefferson nailed it when he tried to give us a heads up about the “corporation”. I don’t think it makes much difference if the corporation directly run the show or the govt runs the show that is run by the corporation.

        • Hello Robert: Thanks for the comment. I don’t think the so-called “privatization” of the prison system is anything close to a real privatization or to a reflection of the free market. I say this for several reasons. One arrangement that is called privatization is when corporations set up shop within prisons. The so-called labor force is enslaved and most often for committing victimless crimes,such as drug-related offenses. Which is to say, the workers are innocent people who have been kidnapped by the state and held against their will, with their labor sold for pennies on the dollar to state-favored corporations. The majority of the dollar paid for labor goes to the government entity who grants the contract to the legaly favored corporation. That’s one form of privatization — privileged corporations working hand-in-hand with government agents who still maintain formal control of the prison.

          Another type of privatization is the corporation assumes control of running the prison itself. That is, the corporation becomes the modern version of a slave master running a plantation. Slavery is the opposite of the free market, free enterprise and true privatization. Corporate control of a prison is the bastardization of anything that is truly “private.” You might glean from my comments that I am anti-corporation…and you would be correct. I am especially anti the crony corporations who suck profit from government connections and taxes. Whether or not corporations could exist without government privileges and perks…I don’t know. I don’t think so but people I respect disagree and I happy to advocate the removal of all privileges and, then, sit back to watch what happens.

          • I think without the government privileges and perks, including limited liability and tax incentives, there would be no reason to incorporate. Then we would just have ‘companies’, and personal responsibility.

          • I agree. I sometimes have a difficult time telling corporations from government proper. I especially dislike limited liability.

          • ” I sometimes have a difficult time telling corporations from government proper.”
            A very critical line indeed. One we would be hard pressed without, and the other we would be better off without.

          • gdp

            Didn’t Murray Rothbard once say that “Every corporation wants to become a government when it grows up”?

        • Bill Ross

          If there were private police forces (plural), they would compete to provide best value. After they realize that conflict is a detractor from the bottom line, the tit for tat competition would, once again converge to the “rule of law”:


          …ditto for countries. Globalism is about preventing this convergence and, of course, removing the “flight” option from the basic “flight versus fight” survival choice.

      • libertatis

        Per Wendy: “I do not believe the centuries old tax-funded, government-employed
        police force *ever* was valid. It was always a standing threat to civil

        Exactly right! Because the public police force is built on an edifice of theft, it can never be legitimate. The confiscation of wealth through forcible taxation constitutes the “original sin”. Even if police were still Mayberry-esque, the premise on which they’re funded destroys their legitimacy.

        They’re funded by theft–and the corruption grows inevitably from that original wrong.

        • John Redman

          “Even if police were still Mayberry-esque, the premise on which they’re funded destroys their legitimacy.”
          I still remember a show that had Danny Thomas (?) thrown in jail for running a stop sign placed where a cross road never had been built. It was kept as a cash cow which the TV star Danny wished to fight. It was overt corruption on Andy’s part.

      • Fritz Knese

        Police (and military) are and always have been the hired thugs government uses to enforce its edicts. They steal our money with taxation to pay the cops who steal our freedoms. Actually a corrupt cop is a good thing for an honest cop’s job is screwing us over. A corrupt cop can be paid to look the other way.

    • Reynaud

      >> They are cornered, feral beasts (barbarians), very dangerous

      I was going to say this, and you beat me to it. I don’t know how much increased police brutality is because they simply don’t care about their image anymore, and how much is because they’re getting desperate. To borrow Wendy’s words, they’ve given up on respect and are now counting on fear. What frightens me is that this can get VERY bad before it gets any better.

      • davidnrobyn

        Two good reasons to explain the increase in police brutality. I think they’re both in play. To which I’ll add a third: The conditioning that 20-somethings have undergone via video games, which portray a violent urban-warfare virtual reality.

    • Bill Ross

      I should point out that I have been intellectually struggling, for years to find an objective relationship between dominance of Greed (as defined in “Mathematics of Rule”, consuming more than you produce) in society and violence in / of society.

      Thus far, given that it is a subjective (value judgement) call when to oppose the survival threat of having your fruits of labor / property stolen by the greedy, the best that can be proven is that there is a positive correlation between greed (crime) and violence in society.

      Anyone out there with insight regarding how to move forward on this minor “academic” point?

    • Christian456

      Bill, It has become annoying to the point that I must take you to task. You repeatedly use “whom” when the correct word would be “who”. Since you choose to spew words so copiously, it would be to the benefit of all of us if you would learn to use them correctly. “Who” is subjective case, the doer of the action. “Whom” is objective case, the receiver of the action. It matters not whether it is a whole sentence or merely a clause within a sentence, the case remains the same.

  • Floris

    Wendy! This was the best, most concise, and eloquent summary of what can be observed in society right now, that I have read in a long time. Way to go girl! Quick! Let’s have a hacker slip this text into Obama’s TelePrompter….

    • Bill Ross

      What!, the Obaminator can read?

      …and, the public can comprehend?

      I think we need to go through the “lose entitlements” -> “riot” stage first. Then, “we can talk”.

    • Thank you so much! I vividly remember when I first read Murray’s three-pronged typology of intervention. It made sudden and wonderful sense of the complex network of state intervention (force). My compliments to you, Floris.

  • MetaCynic

    Sounds like a good beating from the police is the cure for the American strain of the Stockholm Syndrome.

    • I hope not, MetaCynic. I fear so. Thanks for the post.

  • LawrenceNeal

    “Politicians are being seen for who they are: arrogant elites” Look another layer deeper. Politicians, all politicians from the lowest to the highest, are no more than the bought and paid for frontmen for the real power holders, the .001% Elite, the 400 families that own almost everything in the US through a series of layered corporations, including the wall street scam, the federal reserve scam, the too-big-to-fail banksters scam, and by owning the politicians, the illusion of the so-called ‘government’ scam. They are our de factor feudal lords, and view us as their chattel.

    • Lawrence…Our interpretations are not mutually exclusive, of course; both are arrogant elites. We may have a slight disagreement in that I believe there are politicians who are “in it” for themselves rather than as frontmen for those who otherwise hold power…the real power, which is financial. For example, who did Ron Paul front for when he was in Congress? BTW, as an anarchist, I am not defending *anyone* in Congress….but I do think there are quite a few individual exceptions to what you argue. If you said “the majority of politicians,” then I am in full accord. Cheers to you, Lawrence.

      • LawrenceNeal

        Of course, all politicians are in it for themselves, their ego, their advancement, their gain. And all are obligated to their donors, especially their largest donors. As to Ron Paul, all I can say is, ‘In politics, nothing is as it seems’. I would agree that the majority of politicians are unrepentant Quislings serving their corporate masters. There are those who think themselves of a stature and importance that they are in it for their own ends, but if you’re not a blood member of the 400 families, you’re still just a commoner in the greater scheme of things.

        • Ah. What we are each saying is not mutually exclusive, then. And I agree. The rare politician who thinks he is “his own man’ in any sense of that phrase is either a master self-deceit or a peasant within the political class. Thanks for expanding on your theme.

          • LawrenceNeal

            Your replies mean a lot. I follow you here and on The Dollar Vigilante. You’re a well spoken and deeply meaningful author. It’s an honor to have a conversation with you.

          • Thank you, Lawrence. One of the payments I receive from articles is conversation that results with kindred spirits. My best to you.

  • Alex Golubev

    The answer is ACCOUNTABILITY – “the unseen” benefit at the cost of the seen decline in privacy. The big brothers are being recorded, replayed, and scrutinized like never before. There is an objective trail being left by the decision makes. Arab spring will happen here, but without violence. Governance will change form to be more representative of niche interests and initiatives that will be brought together by social networking and not money. When you say that a private police force would function better, I am afraid you are looking in the rear view mirror a bit much. Capitalism is necessary, but it is far from being sufficient. A LEGAL ENTITY exhibits the same properties you were just describing and a private police force without accountability is incredibly dangerous. Accountability is the enabling particle of a FAIR exchange. I’m not socialist at all. I work for a hedge fund for gods sake. I know my history. This is what a private army gets you. Check out the book – the historical account is absolutely fascinating!

    “Besides pioneering the use of joint-stock capital and limited liability, the East India Company is historically significant because it was quite simply the most powerful corporation that has ever existed. Imagine a private company so unaccountable it conducts its own criminal trials and runs its own jails, so dominant it possesses an army larger than any other organized force in the world, and so predatory that for more than two centuries it squeezes the economy of the richest country in the world until observers report that some regions have been “bled white.” The King is dependent on periodic “loans” from the company. A third of Parliament owns stock in it, and a tax on its tea constitutes ten percent of the government’s revenues. A 250,000-man army (twice the size of Britain’s) fights the company’s wars, and the four out of five soldiers in that army who are “sepoys,” i.e. Indians, are kept in line by punishments such as “blowing away”strapping an offending soldier across the mouth of a cannon and firing the weapon.” -Gangs of America (read it here: http://www.gangsofamerica.com/2.html)

    Obviously I hate the fact that NSA is spying on us. And there’s a very thin line between accountability and “1984”, but that’s precisely where our imaginations fall short. The reality is that the undoing of corruption provides quite a bit more upside, legalization of drugs and alternative lifestyles is also a huge upside. Power to the people. Real representative democracy. It’s time to wake up from this so called “depression”. What do you think? Too peachy?

    • Hello Alex. Thanks for the thoughtful post. I have a great deal of trouble, however, with the East India Company being characterized as “private” or in any manner as an expression of the free market. When I use the word “private” I mean activity in the private sector that reflects voluntary or contractual exchange; it is the antithesis of individuals or companies using government and force to achieve their ‘business plan’.

      The East India Company was a role model of crony capitalism…or, perhaps more accurately, crony mercantilism. It was created by Queen Elizabeth through a British government charter (a monopoly privilege) and was originally called the Governor and Company of Merchants of London. Through centuries, it negotiated trade treaties at the behest and behalf of the Crown, for example in India. In other words, it acted as an agent of the state…not a private entity competing in the free market with other businesses. It would be difficult to find a company that was less private than East India.

      To repeat…by “private agency” I mean a voluntary organization or business that functions on the free market with no involvement by the state. That’s what I’m referring to when I write about private police forces or private security guards.

      • Alex Golubev

        Surely the Queen’s crown didn’t speak as loudly as the size of the army outside of Europe. Besides, there were plenty of representative “free market forces” from the queen of Spain in the region to “negotiate” territorial monopoly via piracy and outright battles. I think my premise was that military might enables use of force (a literal “license to kill”) – there is no such thing as FREE market, it’s all just LEVERAGED “negotiation”. I think what a lot of Daily Bell writers miss is the upside in increased accountability and increasingly more representative democracy. I align myself with the irreversible technological current first, ideological second. 1984 scenario scares the bejesus out of me, but I envision a more accountable world. Even if it’s because one politician smearing another because they find dirt on the web. In that sense only your argument will hold truth via # of likes, not your credibility or seniority. Of course there are downsides, but it will be a better world, because the biggest constraints – the AUTHORIZED decision maker will hold less power.

  • ersatzgenug

    This essay is a simple exercise in preferentially oriented taxaonomy. I could, but cannot take the time, to construct, using this authors components, a taxonomic scheme that would produce exactly opposite conclusions. Philosophy and symbolic logic work best with natural components such a elements, forces, and inert stuff, but are not easily applied to social, political, economic and other artifactual components and systems.

    • libertatis

      I could, given sufficient time which I prefer not to, construct an argument that would counter your counter-argument with exactly opposite conclusions.
      When you have generated your counter-argument imagine it has already been counter-countered by my as-yet-unconstructed argument.

  • nate

    i would like to add a layer to the topic in light of the excellent book “power vs force” by dr david Hawkins. power exists in the realm of the higher states of consciousness. you can say that it is “god given”, or generated naturally. force is the function of lower states and relies upon taking power from others. the government wants to keep us in low states of awareness so we keep unconsciously giving up our power. cops love mushy headed authority worshippers because they are more than happy to forfeit their power. the reason the elite are panicking is the same reason police are becoming more brutal: we are starting to collectively raise our awareness and keep our power. police brutalize people when they refuse to give up their power. more people are deciding to keep their power so we are getting more police brutality.

    • Good rephrasing. I’d word your last point in this manner, “people are finally realizing that the state is corrupt and criminal on every level from the autistic to the triangular. Thus they resist turning over their personal power to authority. And authority, unable to persuade them, is falling back upon the last resort of every state — brute force.” And Hawkins’ book is very interesting. Thanks for the post.

  • Future Jim

    Correct. They are becoming seen, so if they can’t regain control of the media (including the Internet) then they have to go for all the marbles this time. They are trying to provoke armed conflict. They need enough control to eliminate zero squads. It could get more ugly than we can imagine.

    What do I mean? Read:
    Why We Elites Manage Innovation http://www.endofinnocence.com/2013/01/why-elites-manage-innovation.html
    What Is Wrong With the People http://www.endofinnocence.com/2013/10/what-is-wrong-with-people.html
    Obama’s DHS Violates Rights House To House http://www.endofinnocence.com/2013/04/obamas-dhs-violates-constitution-house.html

  • Praetor

    The stage is being set. Friends and myself have had many discussions on why the citizenry of the United States have not revolted violently against the system we are living under. WHY. Because we are comfortable in our lives. The vast majority are comfortable, (baby boomers) are still comfortable but the time is coming when the majority is not comfortable, those under 40 years of age will not be comfortable in the future and violence maybe possible. The evil rulers see this as very good possibility also, that leads to their reluctance to re mane unseen, comfort of the citizenry has been their friend up to now and now fear will be their friend in the future. Fear, fight or flight. HOW STUPID ARE THEY. Fight, of course, this is the United States. To hell with their brown shirts that’s been tried already. NSA, buy some truthful history books for a change. Must be millennials working at the NSA, police dept; CIA and homeland security, because they learned nothing in history class. Wake up you idiots, stop following the evil rulers orders, before its to late. Because your comfort zone won’t be so comfortable neither.

    • peck2

      There probably is a lot of truth here. I am 72 years old and AM comfortable with my life. That makes me very dangerous to anyone who attempts to alter my “comfort”.

  • Erik Garcés

    What we have here is essentially, a deceleration of war by the US government against its own people. How can it be termed any other way? When a government decides of its own volition that it may imprison or assassinate its own citizens without due process, that government has announced to the world that it is illegitimate.

    That government is now rogue and dangerous, its a threat to the life and liberty of all of its citizens.

    It was incredibly painful for me to have come to that conclusion, but we cannot allow ourselves to be deluded by romantic notions of what we thought the United States of America was. History teaches us again and again: the price for that ignorance will be subjugation and death.

    There are many who support this type of governance out of a misguided sense of patriotism and a manipulated fear of people who pray differently from us. Sincere, well meaning people who are otherwise well informed and educated yet still honestly believe that Muslims hate America for “our freedoms”. Indeed, people like me are singled out as traitors for pointing out that our government has become the enemy of liberty. I wear that badge with honor.

    What would have happened had free thinkers stood up against the dictators of the 20th Century early on? Before the slaughter of millions? Let us never, ever forget that the leading cause of unnatural death during the 20th Century was government.

    I’ll take a moment to examine what happens when a breakdown of a police state occurs.

    The typical pattern of events as a police state collapses is that an oppressed people tend rise up and extract vengeance from the most visible sign of their oppressors. In near history the Egyptian National Police were widely feared as a brutally corrupt organization. Within days of establishing a numerical superiority on the streets, protestors began beating police officers to death. Those who were known, were dragged from their houses and murdered in front of their families. The fear of the average cop in Egypt was such that many discarded their uniforms and fled for their lives.

    Later, that government was forced to acknowledge their police forces loss of authority by formally disbanding the National Police. Do public sympathies lie with the oppressed people who suffered terribly under these petty tyrants or the policemen who were supposedly just doing their jobs? Perhaps this explains the amazingly swift and violent crackdowns in American cities, lest the protestors begin to overwhelm the police. After all, at their greatest concentration they’re really only a tiny fraction of the populace.

    However, this is the normal pattern in history as police states inevitably loose their grip. In July and August of 1944 a retreating Wehrmacht left a power vacuum in its place. Well supplied with small arms by the Allies, the Maquis extracted a terrible price upon the local Gendarme who could not escape. Many were simply “following orders” but not very many resistance fighters
    believed that.

    Remember my explanation for cops just doing their jobs? If you willingly enforce absurd laws, which the citizenry knows to be absurd, you will generate hostility. Society holds this in check as long as people fear the State, but once the control slips a little… For weeks until advancing British and US forces could put a stop to it, there were French cops swinging from lamp posts, found dead in ditches or worse. Sometimes entire families were murdered in the rampage.

    I shed no tears for those who got what they deserved. Indeed, Oath Keepers is in part a program designed to teach cops just what I explained. Many of these petty tyrants aren’t well educated enough or are too damn arrogant to understand the wider reaching consequences of what they do. Worse yet, many of them don’t believe they will ever answer for their crimes. In suburbia, or semi rural areas like where we live, they are still somewhat respected and the citizens have yet to realize what is about to be unleashed upon them.

    However in the largest cities, particularly the ones with strict gun control laws – these police officers are despised. Because there the people are not only denied the tools to defend themselves, the liberal establishment has also made protecting your property and even self defense a crime in order to promote reliance upon the state for protection. A prime example of this is the recent assault and hospitalization of a Philadelphia police officer. Beaten on a train platform as dozens of witnesses refused to hear his cries for help. The media attempted to ignore this story but it was widely available online with the associated commentary quite illustrative of just how the average person really feels.

    In these urban hell holes, the majority of officers are often young white males from outside of the city. These suburban residents who commute to their inner city police jobs, exercise petty authority over the poor and disenfranchised minorities who live in the segregated, run down and crime ridden ghettos. Thus the residents widely view these young white cops as an occupying army. What makes matters worse, is in some cities, an affirmative action program has brought in large numbers of black and Hispanic cops. These people, even less educated than the suburban white cops are hard to believe, worse. Raised in single parent homes, many from welfare – these people actually believe in the primacy of the state and that the government actually has a legitimate claim on the monopoly of force that enables tyranny. Thus these simple fools become the next generation of useful idiots to the State.

    All of this was planned. Our schools – dumbed down, our families and moral standards degraded. Crime allowed to flourish while simultaneously we have been conditioned to accept that the police will protect us. Self reliance has been steadily criminalized and the benefit of the doubt frequently on the perpetrator and less on the victims.

    How is this remedied? Sadly, the only way it has ever turned around is collapse. History shows that once tyranny gains a
    foot hold, this is the only way its ever corrected, as the bullies in uniform will mostly be dead or in hiding within 48 hours of the
    collapse. When the urban rage that has been seething for generations against the police boils over, what else can happen? Study the history of law enforcement in a tyranny when the system crashes. Don’t take my word for it. What happened to the New Orleans Police Department in the 48 hours after Hurricane Katrina? Most of them were gone, concerned about their families. But how many came back and those who did, what did they do by the end of the week? Begin confiscating law abiding citizens firearms. Why? Re-read the above.

    Egypt in February 2011. France in 1944, Manilla in 1945, Bosnia in the 90’s, Mexico right now. Police state thugs get rounded up and murdered by mobs of angry people. Why do you think the State Controlled Media continually paints the cops as heroes? Society has been conditioned to rely on the state for the responsibilities we handled ourselves for ten thousand years. Why do our State Controlled Schools teach that when you have trouble to dial 911? The WORST thing you can do is call 911 unless its a fire.

    And now perhaps, dear readers, you can see why our national government has been feeding local police departments $500 million in military hardware this year. Why the legal mechanisms of a police state have been put into place. Why our government is calling anyone who stores more than 7 days of food a “terrorist” and why if you cannot see this, then you will be a victim of it.

    • libertatis

      @Erik–a long reply but well worth reading, thank you.
      I cannot fault your historical analysis; it matches what I’ve read and researched as well.
      It is at this moment that we have the greatest potential–potential for immediate danger, and for a dramatic change for the better. I’m saddened that it will probably progress through all the “usual” stages. The loss of life will be tragic; but as Jefferson said, The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

      The larger question is: can this cycle be broken? It seems history is a chronicle of the struggle between two sub-species of human, the “normals” and the 2-4% who are sociopaths. At each swing of the pendulum the “normals” allow the sociopaths access to the levers of power; and through a Darwinian narrowing the worst of the worst ascend through the ranks until government becomes its natural end–a kleptocracy.

      Will one of these swings eventually break through the central flaw in our thinking, the myth of authority?

      • alaska3636

        Let us not forget the sycophant enablers to the 2-4% sociopaths. Each side has their champions and their supporters. That’s what makes the whole battle so gray-scale-oriented.

      • Erik Garcés

        @Libertatis –

        Gandhi is often misquoted as having said: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Of course this is true, but the deep meaning of what he meant is often lost on people.

        I have said that you cannot change the world. One man can make a difference, yes. However the only thing any of us really can control is ourselves. The most difficult for us to do.

        The controllers understand human nature far better than the average among us do. We must keep that in mind when we fail – because the system didn’t have to lift a finger to stop us, we’re our own worst enemies. Never trade what you really want, for you want right now.

        The opposite consciousness here is to remember that this erosion of personal liberty didn’t happen over night and it’s folly to expect it to return in any less a time than what it took to construct. If you really want to see liberty, start with you. Educate yourself to how the world really works and then share that. Ensure that those you share it with do the same. In reading your response, I felt a deep sense of validation, because I see that working.

        No violent police state, no government surveillance, no media manipulation can stop an idea whose time has come. Real liberty comes not from government, but from sharing knowledge. For once you know the magician’s tricks, you can never be fooled again.

        • Perfect.

        • Bill Ross

          When all of the rhetoric is stripped away, situation is the “rule of some men” who claim / wield the ability to forcefully impose what they call “law”, on the rest (exempting themselves, of course). From an action precedes consequence (real timeline) perspective, a group of people have decreed what their interpretation of law is, from THEIR perspective. Peacefully break “their” law and, THEY will, by their own admission and historically proven behavior, initiate aggression against peaceful, civilized people. They aggress against those who possess what they want and, call the inevitable defense of life “terrorism”.

          Fact is, THEY do not (and cannot) “give” you any rights (false promises, a legal tax, to go through the process of pretending so, rationalizing your rights away, at your expense for the illusion). If you want to live, YOU must personally defend your OWN right to life and, engage in “division of labor” (conspire) with like-minded others to “make it so”.

          You, should you so choose can be “the great man of history” by enforcing the “greatest idea of history: freedom” using your personal “will and won’t” power within your personal domain, web of influence.

          Then, on a timeline inversely proportional to permeation of (viral propagation) of “determination to be free” within society, matters will again invert and, criminals will become the hunted, by the “rule of law”, wielded by the sane:


    • Hear, hear! I must applaud the passion with which you write. And you are correct, IMO…American law enforcement and the elites now view the American people as enemy combatants. What else can you take away from the sight of tanks, drones and military equipment spreading through cities under the command of police departments? You raise the excuse offered by law enforcement who violate rights — “I was just doing my job.” (I know you raise it with little sympathy.) That has always seemed to be a bizarre excuse to me. I mean, does it make the violation of my rights more palatable if the perpetrator received money and a pension for doing so? To add insult to injury, the money and pension came/comes from tax funds; my own pocket is being used to victimize me. It is like a police officer who beats me up then saying, “Not only have I violated your rights but look at the generous pay stub I got last week for doing so.” That’s an excuse? It is a sad attempt by law enforcement to relinquish personal responsibility by denying they have free will once they put on a uniform…a uniform and job for which they chose to apply, BTW. Anyway, I know I am preaching to the choir but your passion is contagious.

      • gdp

        “I was just doing my job” is the `modern’ State Thug’s version of the “Nuremberg Defense” — and it is just as false.

        • MichaelLust

          Yes, but it was a defense that our government, at the highest levels, sanctioned when the federal government declined to prosecute those who had committed the rash of torture, kidnapping and murder that was perpetrated after 9/11, under the rubric of the “War on Terrorism”… because those people, after all, were only following orders. This contrast with the “law” the US government enforced at Nuremberg demonstrates the inherent hypocrisy of government, generally, and ours in particular.

        • I could not agree more. I know I am repeating myself but…The abandonment of personal responsibility for one’s own actions is an aspect of “only doing my job” that has been described in depth. But one aspect is hardly ever mentioned. Why does the violation of rights become less onerous because the perpetrator is being paid for the crime? I’m just doing my job means I’m violating your rights in order to pick up a paycheck and pension. How does that make it less vicious or the perpetrator less immoral/amoral? I’ve never understood that part. Thanks much for the comments gdp.

          • Fritz Knese

            Because the violation of “rights” is trivial compared to the real benefit the thugs get. If rights existed in any sense more than our imagination then there would be repercussions. In the real world when it comes to “rights” vs. power, power wins every time.

        • peck2

          Let me get this straight. If Wendy hired me to take out the thug cop that beat her half to death, and I accepted the job and terminated the breathing function of said thug, couldn’t I say “I was just doing my job?” In reality, that would be a lie, since I would probably do it gratis. But you are on target with that phony excuse.

    • John Redman

      The “War on Poverty”, the “War on Terror”, nay, EVERY single government program funded by taxes/duties is a result of the WAR ON PEOPLE. You can consider yourself “one of its own” if you wish but I’M not government property nor a citizen of any earthly (fictional) “nation”. Read my friend (and yours) Larkin Rose’s latest work.

      • I am shamed to say I haven’t read Larkin’s latest…but I will. I need to read everything that man writes. Thanks for shining a light on his name.

    • peck2

      Since I could not have put it better, I won’t even try. I have been declared a “domestic terrorist” because I am a combat vet, because I am white, because I refuse to comply, etc., etc., etc. Oh! Forgot, I also keep an ample supply of food and water and ammo. I suspect that in the near future I will be forced to demonstrate just how accurate their declaration is.

  • gdp

    Some cops are now brutal enough to pepper-spray a harmless squirrel, despite clear objections by the surrounding public, I suppose for the “crime” of having the temerity to “approach the officer too closely”:


    How much longer will it be before the cop turns and also pepper-sprays the bystanders, for having the temerity to object to his pepper-spraying of the squirrel? >:-(

    • peck2

      That is when this “bystander” will draw his .45 ACP, admonish the cop for being so stupid as to bring pepper spray to a gun fight, and put him down. I truly believe that when enough citizens react this way, the cowardly cops will back off. It’s either that or we will just kill more of them.

  • billcollings

    A great example is the recent police ordered cavity searches in Deming, New Mexico.

    • I was horrified by that news story. The only ray of hope in it is that the first doctor whom the police approached to do the anal search refused to do so on ethical grounds. People like that are becoming rare. Thanks for the post Bill.

      • Kenneth Prazak

        I believe market forces could help bring this to an end, or at least make it much more difficult for cops to do this. Anyone in that New Mexico area who has heard of the story should boycott the hospital that participated.

        • peck2

          Market forces are already in the works. Firearm and ammo sales are thru the roof. We are not arming ourselves just for the kicks. We know that in the very near future we are going to have to use these arms in self-defense against all government agents, the lowly and the high placed. A few years ago I briefly considered getting a taser. But then I thought, Why? I don’t want to subdue. I want to terminate.

          • Is it possible some are seeking to provoke violence? Is it possible this disease of police violence is being orchestrated? Is it possible that some in power now seek violent uprisings?

          • peck2

            It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? All “police academies” use the same play book. Who wrote that book? Who taught the thugs that they would be exonerated if they lied that they “felt threatened”? Self-defense is not violence.

          • absolute rights

            self defense can be violent. It can be very violent. and according to my beliefs, is the only morally acceptable use of non-consensual violence on another human.

          • peck2

            Mine too. I have no qualms in “violent self-defense”.

          • Fritz Knese

            Yes but trying to define what is or is not self defense is self defeating for freedom lovers when government never hesitates to use violence. The libertarian non aggression principle sounds good in theory. Practicing it leaves lots of enemies at your back. When I was taking a self defense class years ago I learned that whoever throws the first punch usually wins. So I say one should keep the option open for violence and not worry unduely about if you are defending or initiating. It is better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six.

          • peck2

            True enough Fritz. I do not “define” self defense in my mind, as it is a reaction to an emotion, that emotion being feeling threatened. Oh my! Isn’t that the same excuse the cops use? ” I had to shoot the puppy because I felt threatened”. Whatever, when the event occurs it will require instant decision making. When that drunken thug broke into my home in Pima County AZ., I had a pistol in my hand so fast he didn’t even see it. My first reaction was to shoot. In a billionth of a second, I switched tactics and instead of shooting, I just pistol whipped him into submission, including taking out an eye. To this day I sometimes regret that decision. I was tried by twelve, and exonerated, ( jury nullification?) but the aggressor is still running loose.

          • MichaelLust

            Doesn’t sound like jury nullification. Sounds like a jury taking its responsibility seriously, and doing its job. I’ve interviewed a lot of jurors, post-trial, who never understood their instructions, never understood that it was THEY who were to judge what the facts were. Heard things like “Well, I voted to convict him, because I figured, if he was really innocent, his lawyer would get him out on appeal”. Seriously…that one is as close to verbatim as I can recall Jury nullification is when the jury condones violation of a law…presumably a law they don’t approve of… by acquitting someone who has clearly violated that law. Doesn’t sound like you violated any law… self-defense is a right… seems the jury also saw it that way.

          • peck2

            I actually did have a prescient jury. And they were all from Tucson, a Liberal bastion of morons. I was lucky for that (with a bit of skill in jury selection). Still, in the weak, low I.Q. minds of the Pima County Gestapo, self-defense is a felony, not a right.

          • Bill Ross

            of course, not just “possible”, a truth derivable from observed behavior. Those whom have seized a monopoly of “keeping the peace” (suppressing initiation of aggression), long ago realized that, should they succeed, they are out of a “job”. So, they initiate aggression, invoking defensive responses and then LIE about the who aggressed first timeline, calling “defense of life”, “terrorism”. They don’t lie. From the perspective of predators, unruly prey, is indeed terrifying, a mortal survival threat. Thus, “its either us, or them”.

            KNOW your enemy.

          • John Redman

            See my comment to Wendy just above here.

  • Digital Liberty

    They used to be able to convince the general public that, since we elect our government officials, they were simply carrying out the “will of the people”. How many times have we heard: “If you don’t like the law, then work to change the law”? Fewer and fewer people are buying that anymore.

    • Exactly. That’s why the appeal to brute force will become more and more necessary for the elites to preserve power.

      • John Redman

        More basic than that. The brutality increases because of habituation to it by the offenders and offended just as porn of yesteryear becomes PG for today (“a trace of stocking” anyone?). That a Praetorian Guard exists and more and more wealth/power is stolen speaks to the fear of the elite of being ripped limb from limb. At the bottom of this well of fear is the instinctive knowledge that no guard can be sufficient AND that the guard will perform Praetorially nanoseconds after the paychecks stop. ‘Hoist by their own petard’ then has the images of Mussolini and company refreshed in our minds.

        • You may be mixing oranges and apples here. It is not necessarily true that participation in violence always desensitizes people, else why all the soldier suicides? It may desensitize those already prone to violence.

          Onto pornography. There is surely little formal evidence that watching anything – passively – creates an impulse to go outside civil and social boundaries to apply it. One can watch a “movie rape” without being prompted to repeat it in real life. Yet in Britain David Cameron is now trying to restrict the Internet by claiming this very thing.

          Governments and the power structure generally would love to make direct links between media and behavior because that would certainly simplify law-making, and give the power structure even more control.

          • John Redman

            I was a state cop in the early 70s. What is common today was quite uncommon then while corruption was prolly the same. None of the thugs I “worked” with would even try to do what is so common today. I never attended a seminar or briefing where “Officer Safety” was emphasized, only ‘be careful out there’. There WAS, however, a subtext of ‘everyone out there is committing crime, we just have to catch them’.

            Also, it was never SOP to terrorize the victims of traffic stops and I consider that it IS SOP today. When I was still a trainee, I rode with a lot of seasoned cops and observed their ubiquitous stupidity. I lasted 3 years.

            My comment about porn is that there is a slippage in what society tolerates “in public”. The reference was to Cole Porter’s song Anything Goes,

    • Fritz Knese

      Unfortunately, plenty of people do buy the change it from within concept. It can’t work for the system is rigged for the ruling elite to keep their power and perqs. But most people will remain docile so long as they have beer, drugs, and video games. Freedom is not high on their priority list.

  • Shawn

    After reading through the comments, I’d like to make a point regarding corporations: a corporation is merely a “body of people acting as one.” So, I have a great idea for a product or service, but lack the capital, so I sell shares of stock to start up my company, and hence, everyone who buys into it do so for the mutual benefit (profits) that will arise from selling the product or service. In that sense, the entity acts alone, separated from the individuals involved, with only one mission: to maximize profit from the sales of the product or service. In that sense, yes, corporations would certainly exist without the state. The difference lies in the fact that under the current system, corporations are created through a legal charter granted from the state, and this grants them certain privileges that wouldn’t exist naturally, such as limited liability, etc. It also subjects them to a number of restrictions, but those restrictions exist more to allow bigger corporations to squash the smaller ones and maintain their monopolies than to “protect the public.” An example of this is the high cost of licensing fees found in a number of industries, and also IP laws that allow the big monopolies to essentially “buy away” my ability to create and sell products. I know this is quite off topic from the original article, but I saw it being discussed in some detail, and so felt inclined to discuss it a bit further. As for the article itself, I have to say you’re spot on (yet again), Wendy, and can’t think of anything I’d add or disagree with. 🙂

    • MichaelLust

      Whatever this lacks for being “off topic” is more than compensated for by being a cogent, comprehensible explanation of how corporations become coercive mechanisms, used by and using the power of the State. Excellent. Thank you.

      • Shawn

        Thanks for saying so, Michael. 🙂

    • Shawn…you may be correct that there is nothing inherently anti-free market about corporations. Certainly that is true of the arrangement you describe. As I mentioned in another post, I am quite happy to strip the business-related “body of people acting as one” of all government privilege or involvement and then watch whether the arrangement works or not. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong. Glad you like the article, Shawn. Please jump in whenever you have something interesting to say (as you did) whether or not it is directly on the topic of the article. Who knows? I could learn something.

      • Fritz Knese

        Unfortunately it will take more than just stripping corps of their legal and governmental advantages since the corps already own us all. Until the playing field has been leveled a lot by taking away the wealth that has been stolen by tahe corporations with government aid the free market can’t really work. Slaves are not free to market or anything else. We are basically economic slaves. How to do this without the evil of socialist redistribuition is the question.

  • Kenneth Prazak

    Excellent point, Wendy–reminds me of a great Frank Zappa quote, “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” (and its blunt instruments of force)

  • NanaCoupeau

    I get so tired of my tiny eyes being opened to evil.

  • MichaelLust

    I wish I could believe this… that these further, ever more blatant and brutal encroachments of government are a symptom of the government’s desperation that people are onto the scam. That is at least a hopeful view, one with the suggestion that government is at last approaching the limits of its plausibility… a few more steps, and we may finally be ready to cast it aside. But I’m afraid that the advances of the National Security State are better explained by the truism: “they do it because they can”… and they can because the populace has let itself be terrorized by random threats of violence from “others”, and inured to the greater threat of controlled, focused violence from government, pretending to be “of the people, by the people and for the people”.

    • Michael…a great many people will never be “on” to the scam. The important question is “how many people does it take?” Benjamin Tucker voiced the opinion that a law or government could not stand if 10% of the population simply and fully refused to obey it. If that much of the population said “no” and stood by it, then you wuold be left with the uncommitted middle (the majority of people), those who thought obedience was a duty, and those who would enforce the law. The latter category are the most dangerous, of course, but they would be called upon to arrest neighbors, family members, and upstanding citizens…all of whom would be among the 10%. This gets into a sticky situation for the state…and one that has made many states retreat. I have no loyalty to the 10% figure, and I know it is impossible to measure how much dissent = a revolutionary result. But I also think America may be coming close to a tipping point on Obamacare and that will more significant than a tipping point on almost any other issue because Obama will fight tooth and nail for it as his legacy. Do I think there will be a revolution in the traditional sense? No, I don’t. But there may be a tipping point in attitude toward the state. I am no prescient but I am hopeful in a narrow view.

      • Bill Ross

        The trigger for the “tipping point” is when unproductivity (greed) overwhelms productivity:


        …then, the personal, value judgement for the prey kicks in when “going along, to get along” is a greater personal survival threat than “disobey”. I am attempting to understand this process better, to objectively quantify per my question below.

        IMHO, 10% is far too high. The intelligent (perhaps 5%, at most) will again “lead”, by voluntary, self-interest, “monkey see, monkey do” and gain a following.

        My article “rule of law” is intended as a template for those whom still believe in the “system” and want to futilely attempt to reform from within. It will fail, but, in the process, help clarify and reduce false complexity of “the issues”, hopefully, subverting many insiders in the judiciary, legal “profession” to understand that “liberty will prevail” (all of natural law supports this) and, their self-interest lies with the “winning side”.

      • John Redman

        3% plus 1. Then there is the financial collapse that OC is generating on top of the student loan bubble bursting on top of everything else and the revolution will be self actuating with nobody receiving renumeration for “enforcing the law”. August 5th, 2014.

        • John Redman

          In the movement, the “plus 1” means oneself.

      • Fritz Knese

        Perhaps in Tucker’s time that would have been true. Today authorities would jail or kill until they got compliance. I honestly believe that our real rulers would use nukes on the US if they thought it would help them contain freedom lovers. Perhaps they are waitlng for libertarians to settle more in NH. I see modern life as not all that different so far as freedom is concerned from the lives of the slaves that built the Pyramids. It will never change from within. I agree that you are a fantastic educator towards freedom philosophy. Yet I see zero positive effect of your many years of brilliant writing. This leads me to believe that education alone will never prevail against the coercive might of the state.

        • MichaelLust

          I’m not so sure the pyramids were built by slaves, as we understand that word…. but you raise (at least) two intriguing points… how merciless would modern authorities be about enforcing compliance (it seems to me you are right… the system is virtually programmed to escalate violence without restraint until the victim submits or is destroyed), and it may be that there are strong parallels between historical conditions of servitude and our vaunted “American freedom”… and this is what I meant in my first sentence: it may be that cultural conditioning, folk beliefs, superstitions, the calculated falsehoods of ambitious men can enslave a people more profoundly even than whips and chains. More pitiful and servile than any, the slave who thinks that he is free.

          • Fritz Knese

            Nicely put. Slavery takes many forms. In the western word today economic slavery is the norm. So long as that works the powers that be will not bother escalating to violent repression. But make no mistake, they keep their thugs on retainer (cops and military) so when the economic slave dares try to rise he can be put down permanently if need be. Even in the best of circumstances cops enforce some laws. Laws limit one’s freedom. Thus cops steal your freedom as their daily job. I am supposed to respect them for this?!!

      • MichaelLust

        I appreciate Tucker’s point. And I agree with you… nothing magical about the particular number “10%”… mathematical precision is not essential to the assertion anyway. The point remains that a dissident fraction of the populace far short of an actual majority may suffice to render the whole ungovernable, and that seems valid. But I’m afraid that so, so many people will walk with the herd… indeed, so many of them will cheerfully inform upon the non-compliant or dissident, and so many others (the “most dangerous” class you have already defined) will just as happily enforce the will of the state… in the name of patriotism, or security, or the love of mom… that I cannot be optimistic about reaching that “critical mass” of understanding and defiance, however modest the fraction of the whole might be. Don’t let MY pessimism discourage you, lass… I’m totally pulling for your, more optimistic view, to be right about this.

  • Mari Baumgarner
    • Good morning Mari. I encourage reposting and reprinting as long as people give credit and a link back to the Daily Bell. With that cavaet, I throw my work to the wind.

  • Whats even sadder is there are still plenty of people who defend this abuse in the garbage excuse of “law and order”. Whether it’s “law and order” conservatives or Obama loving liberals. This why organizations like Cop Block and Photography is Not a Crime are vital to the anti-statist fight

    • peck2

      I care nothing about “law and order”, mainly because there is no such thing. A few years ago while in Pima County, AZ I was arrested and charged with multiple counts of aggravated assault because I defended myself IN MY HOME, against a much larger, drunken intruder. During the ensuing ordeal, 12 out of 13 involved deputies lied under oath in their reports, lied to get a search warrant, lied to get an indictment, and lied on the stand during my “criminal” trial. All this “under color of law”. The intruder was charged with zip,zero, nada. This is todays “law and order.

      • MichaelLust

        There are people who will be absolutely certain that things just couldn’t have happened as you report them, peck. I’m not one of those people. I’ve worked as an investigator and paralegal in criminal cases for over 20 years. I’m convinced that many, many police officers and deputies lie on a routine basis, almost as a matter of habit, and some others that usually seem honest will lie in a heartbeat to back up one of their buddies. They even have a name for doing it in court… they call it “testi-lying”.

        • Kyfho Myoba

          Oh, come on, now. Law and order are GREAT! I especially love the natural law and the spontaneous order, they’re the best.

  • peck2

    The most important thing to be aware of is the huge lie…”innocent until proven guilty”. We are all guilty of being alive and living under the impression that we are free citizens. That makes us dangerous in the low IQ brain of the thug costumed armed cops. The cops, all of them since I do not believe there are any “goods ones”, actually do have reason to fear us. They have brought this animosity on themselves. I am always armed and will NOT allow some punk armed and badged costumed thug to intimidate or harass me and steal from me. I do not care if they are fathers, husbands, brothers, etc., any more than they care about me or my family. As far as I am concerned, they are nothing more than targets breathing my air and deserve to be terminated.

    • As I responded elsewhere. Please note…I am certain the Daily Bell does not advocate the use of lethal force against agents of the state. Believe me, I understand the depth of emotion and the right of self-defense that underlies such statements but I cannot endorse (nor would the Daily Bell endorse) the killing of human beings. Even though I advocate non-violent resistance, I am far far from a pacifist and I would argue anyone into the ground re: the right of an otherwise peaceful person to meet deadly force with deadly force but the situations you are describing as police actions — ” intimidate or harass me and steal” — are *not* deadly force ones and should be met with other responses.

      • True, this. Education comes to mind as one potential remedy, and people like Ms. McElroy have been most helpful in this regard…

      • gyrwan

        Never been here before; but, the only thing more asinine than this statement:

        “I understand the depth of emotion and the right of self-defense that underlies such statements but I cannot endorse (nor would the Daily Bell endorse) the killing of human beings.”

        Is to follow it up with this:

        “I am far far from a pacifist”

        But, there’s more. After an entire article describing how the Rule of Law has been dismissed and the basics of a Civil Society are no longer evident, you say:
        “the situations you are describing as police actions — ” intimidate or harass me and steal” — are *not* deadly force ones and should be met with other responses”

        As if recourse to the law is a reliable option. As if there’s justice to be found there anymore.

        Better re-read your Locke, and get over the “all government is coercion” anarchist crackpottery. You may as well say that “all family is coercion” or “all life is coercion”. Those things may be true, or even truisms; but they’re pointless and inane.
        If you enter into a contract which specifies penalties for breach, and then you breach the contract, you’ve got little basis for complaining. Blame the fact that you never consented to the contract of a civil society if you want to; but don’t blame the society or the government — place the blame where it lies …… with your PARENTS, for having given you life and raised you within the safety of that society. Or, maybe you should rail at God, instead; and see how he answers your prayers for anarchy.
        That, or go live in the wilderness somewhere without bringing any of the trappings or advantages that society has given you (e.g. clothing, shoes, food, raw materials, or even your very life up to this point), and see how far you get. In other words, quitcher bitchin and go live sans government and society, and get off your lazy ass typing nonsense on the internet (hey! another appurtenance of society and, yes, the safety and order granted by government).

        If you hate these words:
        “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
        then go live alone without them or the concept they represent.
        That, or try living alongside a group of people who all reject this principle and see how little “coercion” you’re subject to.

        • Ah, another!

          Quoting Locke and then suggesting that PARENTS are to blame. A combination of Freshman philosophy and Mr. Rogers. Just brushed up today, eh? So “intellectual.”

          And then the misuse of the word “anarchy.” Look it up before you use it.

          And quoting the Constitution including the part that reads, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Does that include destroying electoral paper trails all over the country?

          This is the best part: “Blame the fact that you never consented to the contract of a civil society if you want to.”

          Doubt many consented to what the Internet has revealed to US citizens: endless phony wars in Africa and the MIddle East draining the treasure and blood of US citizens; depleted uranium weapons poisoning US youth; vaccines causing needless death but protected by an unholy alliance of Big Pharma and Leviathan, US$2 trillion in mislaid Pentagon funds admitted to the day before 9/11: some US$16 trillion issue out secretly by The Bernank in 2009 to his banking cronies around the world; the purposefully botched Obama healthcare rollout designed to bring the US further in line with Mexico and Canada’s single payer system prior to a likely North American Union.

          Civil society? 50 million on food stamps. 25 percent unemployment? Comprehensive government spying on the miserable masses; largest military in history and an incarceration rate that dwarfs the world; Industry ripped from its moorings and shipped abroad? Deliberately poisoned food? The endless hoax of global warming. US$4 trillion in squandered taxes; the illegal money printing that drains the scant prosperity of the US in order to render it malleable for further globalism.

          Never been here before, eh? Just stopped in and left an off-the-cuff comment. Thanks.

          • peck2

            I question only your “largest military in history” comment. This phony president is taking down our military to the point where we are are vulnerable to the extreme.

          • MichaelLust

            Not really, peck. They could cut our military…budgets, forces, bases….completely in half, and we would still have more and better than any other nation on the planet. Truly: we spend more on the military than the next 18 or 20 other nations COMBINED… and most of those in the top 20 are our ALLIES. There is no conceivable enemy, or combination of enemies in the world today that could seriously challenge the US military. Seriously… I’d bet that our Coast Guard and Marine Corps, by themselves, and with very little augmentation of arms and equipment, would be more than a match for any but the military forces of a very few other nations…

          • peck2

            I’m a veteran of the Nam fiasco, Michael. It’s all in the application. It matters little what our capability is if we are not allowed to utilize it. I am still very bitter about Nam. Afghanistan is little different. But hell, Michael, I’m 72 now, an old curmudgeon. “Man plans, God laughs”.

          • MichaelLust

            I hear you. I was in only at the tail end of that war, Cambodia, Marine Corps. My experiences, and my reading (after the fact…why didn’t I find out that stuff BEFORE I enlisted?) suggest good reason for bitter feelings about Viet Nam, but not necessarily because of the ROE given to troops in the field. Rather, I resent that we were there under false pretext, and given a mission that could not have been accomplished in the first place, because our stated objectives were in direct contradiction to what we were actually ordered to do. We were told we were protecting democracy and the people of Viet Nam, when the truth was that WE, and the minority government in Saigon that we supported, were the major impediments to the people of Viet Nam choosing their own form of governance. We were lied to, Congress and the American people were lied to. The world was lied to. Hundreds of thousands of people, “ours” and “theirs”, died young for no good reason.

          • peck2

            Thanks for “hearing ” me. My bitterness is not selective. It is all inclusive regarding Nam, beginning with Johnson/McNamara and ALL Liberal dumbocrats who participated in your above mentioned lies.

          • I hear you, too, Peck2. No one knows the “beast” as much as those who have been in the belly. Vietnam was a turning point for a lot of us..but for none so much as those who were over there. I experienced government policy through deprivations like having to pay taxes. You experienced it through having a gun in your hands and making the moral choice of when to fire, on whom to fire. That’s a difference of kind. And my hat is off to you.

          • MichaelLust

            Most of us have never been ASKED whether we “consent to be governed”, gyrwan. No alternative is ever offered. Defiance or non-compliance are punished with force. Who are we to blame for threats and violence, if not those who make threats, and initiate violence? As for the suggestion that, if we are not happy to be subjects of the Crown, we ought to blame our upbringing… well, that strikes me as truly inane. In fact, it sounds like the self-righteous blather of a thoroughly-programmed serf of the State, resentful of others who resist, and so, apparently, weren’t programmed “properly”. Seems you took the blue pill.

        • John Redman

          “the only thing more asinine than this statement” that YOU make is that you can speak knowledgeably about anarchists. ACT-u-ally, you live a large portion of your life being self directed unless you are in prison or in the military. Do you not chaff when acting under orders, then, the rest of the time?

      • Fritz Knese

        Read John Ross’s Unintended Consequences. It is illegal to advocate the use of deadly force against government, but government holds control by ultilmately its willingness to use deadly force. Ironic, eh?

        • Hello Fritz. Thanks for the reference. Re: advocating force. It is interesting that the Daily Bell forum is particularly vulnerable to legal charges for posters who advocate violence against the government. Why? Because it is moderated. Courts have found with some consistency that an unmoderated forum is not responsible for the opinions airedupon it but a moderated one is placed in the same category as a publisher. That is, the forum is considered to be edited and so undeleted or uncontradicted posts are considered to be “endorsed” by the forum.

          • Fritz Knese

            Justgoes to show that freedom of speech does not exist despite the first amendment. Once agan I am reminded that “rights” do not really exist outside our minds. without power to take your rights you realistically have none.That circles back to the violence issue. Round and round we go!

      • peck2

        Wendy, do you really believe that a fat stupid cop with his hand on his weapon while approaching is *not* deadly force? I suspect the tens of thousands of citizens who have been beaten and/or shot by the cops would disagree.

        • Peck2. I refuse to discuss the propriety of killing police officers on a public forum that could incur legal problems for doing so. I reiterate: it is against the law to advocate breaking the law, and moderated forums are held legally responsible for all utterances on the same level as publishers. I know you are venting but do you really want to place fellow-travelers (I presume you consider the Daily Bell to be one) in an legally awkward position so that you can vent? I suggest that you are not furthering liberty by doing so. You are harming it. This is the last post I will make on whether or not police officer should be or deserve to be killed.

          • A general comment to all: No discussion of this sort needs to take place let alone continue. We will start removing comments if we have to.

          • dc.sunsets

            Sadly, many people do not understand that because the state exists only due to consent (or at least acquiescence) on the part of our neighbors, advocating violence against any element of the state is tantamount to calling for violence against the neighbors, which is insane.

            The only two avenues that do not feed the power of the state are 1) withdrawal of support and 2) fleeing the state. At least today it seems the former remains possible and relatively non-hazardous. If and when the economy heads south hard, the latter may be the only life-affirming action left.

          • peck2

            OK, Wendy. Had no idea my utterances would put you or the Bell in jeopardy. I won’t run off like Shadow 58, but it is too bad that thoughts and words can be reacted to in so many ways. I did not know about the “moderated forums” responsibility caveat. I have not advocated attacking anyone. I am strictly a defensive free man who believes in the natural law of survival, and that includes self-defense, “a separate issue”.

          • Thank you peck2. I appreciate it and I’m really pleased you are not taking offense and taking off. A tip of my hat to you.

          • ArmyAviator

            There is NO justification for killing police officers on the streets of our nation.

    • Jubal Harshaw

      There is one defense against the state left that no one is talking much about. One that is built in to the fabric of the legal system. JURIES. Specifically jury nullification.

      People need to be educated on the power and responsibility of being a jury member. As a Juror you sit in judgement of the law, the application of the law and the facts. You and those 11 others are actually the most powerful people in the country at that time for that matter. More powerful than the judge or the prosecutor or the governor or police or the Congress or the POTUS.

      They have sold us all “ignorance is bliss” lies to prevent us from seeing, understanding and using this vast power. So we enslave ourselves while holding the very tool to break the chains in our hands.

      Don’t like the war on drugs? Accept your jury call and vote NOT GUILTY for that transaction between 2 consenting adults. Now if the guy was being an idiot and shooting up the neighborhood, by all means guilty for that. But not guilty for say the cannabis transaction. War on drugs law – can’t buy or sell cannabis – is dead. Law is no good if a jury won’t convict.

  • Shadow_58

    I’ll say this plain and simple. If a COP tries this crap with me, his fellow officers will be wearing a black ban around their badges.

    • I do not know the motives of people who post on this forum about killing police officers, and I will not speculate. But I ask that readers refrain from doing so… Please read my responses to peck2 on this subject. If you respect the Daily Bell, please do not advocate violence here. Thank you.

      • Shadow_58

        And you think the COPS are promoting peace?????????????? Will not post to this site anymore, have a good life.

        • Shadow…I would be sorry to see you leave. But, if you have read the article, you will know that I am under no delusion about the police promoting peace. What I’m objecting to is the advocacy of violence, especially killing anyone, on this forum. This is not a personal reaction but one based on the law. It is illegal to advocate an illegal act — which killing police officers most certainly is — and doing so could place this forum in a legally awkward position. I am being protective of the forum’s continuance. And, with all sincerity, I hope you remain part of that continuance.

          • We do not promote violence on this website. We never have. We believe people need to educate themselves and succeed in peaceable ways. Self-defense is a separate issue.

          • Shadow_58

            So you wish to curtail my Freedom of Speech and My Right to self-defense. Have a good life, bye.

          • She’s not curtailing anything. She was politely trying to remind you about something.

          • Shadow_58

            Reminding me to be a nice little socialist and comply with all the orders issued. Have a nice life.

          • Isefree

            Temper tantrum?

          • MichaelLust

            Shadow, she’s reminding you that, in the society we inhabit, you can express any feelings, even contempt for law enforcement officers, but you cannot advocate killing them without inviting coercive consequences from the mechanisms of the state… which are likely to begin with shutting down the blog UPON WHICH YOU ARE A GUEST.

            Nobody asked you to be a nice little socialist, but it it is just foolish to give statists that kind of opportunity and legal excuse to step on you, and all of us. You were asked only to be considerate of the rest of us, who don’t want to lose this medium because one participant won’t use a little discretion.

          • sparksnavy

            My two cents worth–
            Not only that–but Shadow is harming himself and will not be able to do what he thinks or plans on doing–he will be long gone one way or the other–just keep it up Shadow and mark my words–it will be “So long”—
            To the rest of you keep up the good work and take care—
            My two cents worth—

          • Shadow…I will try one more time because I do not wish to lose a fellow traveler. I value your presence on the forum but you are expressing yourself in such a manner as to place the forum and its admins in legal jeopardy. The forum is private property. It is as though you entered a private home and claimed the right to speak as you wished even though the owners objected. The objection offered is not frivolous. The forum could be legally closed down and the admins could face legal trouble/expense because you wish to express yourself in whatever manner you chose. It is a sign of my respect for you that I am posting yet again to ask you to reconsider your dismissal of the Daily Bell. Please don’t.

          • Shadow_58

            So Long!

  • MareCadTITANIC

    Welcome to 1984!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • John Redman

    August 5th, 2014, the collapse. Be ye ready. Pb the new Au.

    • I’m curious, John. I agree that 2014 will be tipping point in more than one way…but why August 5th? Can you explain?

      • John Redman

        It has mostly to do with an event associated with OC. I feel that events will be involved with Fukashima in some horrible way but the financial collapse never the less. You like my Larken Rose comment?

        • I like any mention of Larken, John. The man is a treasure. I’m embarrassed to say that I have not read his latest book…but I will. There’s nothing the man writes that I don’t have on my reading list. Thanks for the comment.

          • John Redman

            Wendy, if you haven’t been invited to speak at Porcfest yet, shame on them.
            Anyhow, I bought ten copies of Most Dangerous Superstition and gave 9
            of them away to where I thought they would do some good. I recently
            bought 20 copies of Rev Emanuel Charles McCarthy’s Boldly Like God, Go
            Against the Sword, a set of 15 audio CDs from the Center for Christian Nonviolence. Ya otta give a listen to the #1 of the series at least, preaching to the choir fer sure.
            Look, I repeated the 3% plus 1 figure to you and that represents what
            was the active part of the 1776 thing. Even if the financial collapse
            were not (over) due, I figure that the disaffected portion must be over
            that. I hope sayin that does not upset either you or The Daily Bell. I
            must also say that Peck2 and I are only 1 year apart and very little in
            our thinking though I strongly favor non-violent civil disobedience to trigger a tipping point.

          • John…nothing you are saying is upsetting. It is interesting. And the 3% figure may well be accurate re: the American Revolution. I think a larger percentage of dissidents may be necessary now because the social and political conditions are less receptive for a revolution. One such condition: the colonials rebelled against a distant foreign government with a minimal military presence on American soil. Today, revolutionaries would be dealing with a government seated in their own backyard which has a vast, vast military (including law enforcement) with boots on U.S. ground. I think a revolution today might well look more like a civil war than the American Revolution did.

          • ArmyAviator

            If 0bama and his regime continue to drive a wedge between the Blue States and the Red States, we may see the Secession movement in Texas, as an example really heat up. Already in a recent poll, 48% of those polled favor Secession. While I doubt it will happen, the sentiment is alive and simmering. Texas is probably the only US state capable of sustaining itself as a sovereign nation as it once was. I can’ see the Federal government raising an army to invade Texas, should Secession happen, but then with Democrats, who knows? I hope this never happens as who wants a civil war? I certainly want NO violence in our nation, but fear it’s coming despite my pleas for peace and reconciliation.

  • Fritz Knese

    I have come to expect brilliance in your articles. You have not disappointed me here.

  • Anon

    If you were a sociopath, think about your options. Sociopaths will gravitate to police forces. Where eles can they get away with killing, torturing and raping with no control? Even if their co-workers notice something, they are still protected by the blue wall of silence.

    • Anon…the one person in my family who decided to become a police officer is the one who used to beat up cousins who were smaller and especially who were smaller females. He was nothing short of cruel from childhood onward and he never considered any other line of work than being an officer.

  • john sloan

    Wendy another reason why police brutality is rising is be lies the currency is being diluted

  • john sloan

    Sorry because the currency is being diluted

    • I agree. That is a root cause if only because it leads to other situations — e.g. high unemployment, poverty — that people feel on a visceral level and so cannot ignore.

  • john sloan

    I think you basically hit upon this as people seeing thru the veneer of the gov

  • john sloan

    Plato wrote a great piece entitled ” the death of Socrates” of course socrates was killed by roman soldiers in the street because of his vocal opposition to the roman police state which was put in place because of their declining value of their money

    • The trial and execution of Socrates took place in 399 BC. Socrates was tried on two charges: corrupting the youth and impiety (in Greek, asebeia). More specifically, Socrates’ accusers cited two “impious” acts: “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”. These two problems were the result of Socrates asking philosophical questions. A majority of the dikasts (Athenian citizens chosen by lot to serve as jurors) voted to convict him. Consistent with common practice, the dikasts determined Socrates’ punishment with another vote. Socrates was ultimately sentenced to death by drinking a hemlock-based liquid. Primary sources for accounts of the trial are given by two of Socrates’ friends, Plato and Xenophon; well known later interpretations include those of the journalist I. F. Stone and the classics scholar Robin Waterfield.


      • George Stuffalottapuss

        Plato wrote about a final conversation he had with Socrates at his cell. Socrates convincingly argues that he must accept his fate, for what is society without succumbing to its rule?

        • More and more we are convinced that Ayn Rand’s admiration for Socrates was at least questionable.

          • George Stuffalottapuss

            No one’s perfect.

          • Not even Reddit.

        • Socrates’ wife objected to the injustice of his sentence. He asked her, “Would you prefer that I deserved it ?”

  • john sloan

    Abby but killed by the status quo , typical thank you for the info

  • john sloan

    Socrates saw thru the veneer

  • Russell Ashbaugh

    all government intervention rests upon coercion.

  • Russell Ashbaugh

    “all government intervention rests upon coercion” In the sense that the “government” is the State, the State’s existence is coercion.

  • “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

    George Washington.

    • Just so you know, this is apparently one of the Internet’s “false quotes.”

      • MichaelLust

        Funny…I was reading that one years before there WAS an internet. Are you sure? Anyway, even if it is a misquote, or mis-attributed, the assertion itself certainly isn’t false.

  • a b

    I Think People in USA are most ignorant and uninformed people they deserve this reality check .Every time US govt bombed and invaded other Countries people in US always Cheered . Ignorance always pays off i guess its time these people to suffer this time at the hands of there own govt ” what goes around comes around ”

  • fatunclesam

    I dream of the day Americans finally snap and wake up to the fact that our government is nothing more than the most powerful mob in charge at the time.