MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Self-defense’

The Right to Self-Defense

Posted by M. C. on May 13, 2022

If there can be no compulsion against jurors or witnesses, then a libertarian legal order will have to eliminate the entire concept of the subpoena power. Witnesses, of course, may be requested to appear. But this voluntarism must also apply to the defendants, since they have not yet been convicted of crime.

https://mises.org/library/right-self-defense

Murray N. Rothbard

If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property it then follows that he has the right to keep that property—to defend it by violence against violent invasion.

Absolute pacifists who also assert their belief in property rights—such as Mr. Robert LeFevre—are caught in an inescapable inner contradiction: for if a man owns property and yet is denied the right to defend it against attack, then it is clear that a very important aspect of that ownership is being denied to him. To say that someone has the absolute right to a certain property but lacks the right to defend it against attack or invasion is also to say that he does not have total right to that property.

Furthermore, if every man has the right to defend his person and property against attack, then he must also have the right to hire or accept the aid of other people to do such defending: he may employ or accept defenders just as he may employ or accept the volunteer services of gardeners on his lawn.

How extensive is a man’s right of self-defense of person and property? The basic answer must be: up to the point at which he begins to infringe on the property rights of someone else. For, in that case, his “defense” would in itself constitute a criminal invasion of the just property of some other man, which the latter could properly defend himself against.

It follows that defensive violence may only be used against an actual or directly threatened invasion of a person’s property—and may not be used against any nonviolent “harm” that may befall a person’s income or property value. Thus, suppose that A, B, C, D … etc. decide, for whatever reason, to boycott the sales of goods from Smith’s factory or store. They picket, distribute leaflets, and make speeches—all in a non-invasive manner—calling on everyone to boycott Smith. Smith may lose considerable income, and they may well be doing this for trivial or even immoral reasons; but the fact remains that organizing such a boycott is perfectly within their rights, and if Smith tried to use violence to break up such boycott activities he would be a criminal invader of their property.

Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else’s property without his consent, and is therefore “implicit theft.”

Thus, suppose someone approaches you on the street, whips out a gun, and demands your wallet. He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself.

It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act. Any remote or indirect criterion—any “risk” or “threat”—is simply an excuse for invasive action by the supposed “defender” against the alleged “threat.” One of the major arguments, for example, for the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was that the imbibing of alcohol increased the likelihood of (unspecified) people committing various crimes; therefore, prohibition was held to be a “defensive” act in defense of person and property. In fact, of course, it was brutally invasive of the rights of person and property, of the right to buy, sell, and use alcoholic beverages.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Do We Still Have a Constitution? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 12, 2020

These amendments were ratified to restrain the federal government from infringing upon personal liberties. Since the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and subsequent litigation, these amendments, for the most part, restrain the states as well. The courts have characterized these protected liberties as fundamental

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/11/andrew-p-napolitano/do-we-still-have-a-constitution/

By Andrew P. Napolitano

I have been taking some heat from friends and colleagues for my steadfast defense of personal liberties and my arguments that the Constitution — when interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of its words, and informed by history — does not permit the government to infringe upon personal freedoms, no matter the emergency or pandemic. For those who agree with me, worry not. We will persevere. For those who trust the government, worry a lot. You are not in good hands.

The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the government and to limit it. Some of the limitations are written in the Constitution itself. Most of the limitations that pertain to personal freedoms are found in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments.

These amendments were ratified to restrain the federal government from infringing upon personal liberties. Since the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and subsequent litigation, these amendments, for the most part, restrain the states as well. The courts have characterized these protected liberties as fundamental. Natural Law Spooner, Lysander Buy New $4.99 (as of 03:45 EDT – Details)

So, the rights to thought, speech, press, assembly, worship, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership, interstate commercial activities and fair treatment from government are plainly articulated or rationally inferred in the first eight amendments. The Ninth is a catchall, which declares that the enumeration of rights in the first eight shall not mean that there are no other rights that are fundamental, and the government shall not disparage those other rights. The Tenth reflects that the states have reserved powers to themselves.

The Ninth was especially important to its author, James Madison, because of his view that natural rights — known today as fundamental rights — are integral to each person, and they are too numerous to list. In the next century, the anti-slavery crusader Lysander Spooner would explain it thusly: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, … or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

Natural rights collectively constitute the moral ability and sovereign authority of every human being to make personal choices — free from government interference or government permission.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that government derives all its powers from the consent of the governed. And Madison understood the Ninth Amendment to declare that our personal choices are insulated from government interference so long as their exercise does not impair another’s rights.

From this, it follows that if governments interfere with our personal choices — and we have not consented to their power to interfere — the interference is invalid, unlawful and, because our personal choices are essentially protected from governmental interference by the Bill of Rights, unconstitutional.

Now, back to the present-day restraints during this pandemic.

The current interferences with the exercise of rights protected by the Bill of Rights devolve around travel, assembly, interstate commercial activities and the exercise of religious beliefs. These infringements have all come from state governors who claim the power to do so, and they raise three profound constitutional issues.

The first is: Do governors have inherent power in an emergency to craft regulations that carry the force of law? The answer is no. The Guarantee Clause of the Constitution mandates a republican (lowercase “r”) form of government in the states. That means the separation of powers into three branches, each with a distinct function that cannot constitutionally be performed by either of the other two. Since only a representative legislature can write laws that carry criminal penalties and incur the use of force, the governor of a state cannot constitutionally write laws.

The second constitutional issue is: Can state legislatures delegate away to governors their law-making powers? Again, the answer is no because the separation of powers prevents one branch of government from ceding to another branch its core powers. The separation was crafted not to preserve the integrity of each branch but to assure the preservation of personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much power in any one branch.

We are not talking about a state legislature delegating to a board of medical examiners in the executive branch the power to license physicians. We are talking about delegating away a core power — the authority to create crimes and craft punishments. Such a delegation would be an egregious violation of the Guarantee Clause. Suicide Pact: The Radi… Napolitano, Andrew P. Best Price: $0.25 Buy New $2.84 (as of 04:15 EST – Details)

The third constitutional issue is: Can a state legislature enact laws that interfere with personal liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, prescribe punishments for violations of those laws and authorize governors to use force to compel compliance? Again, the answer is no because all government in America is subordinate to the natural rights articulated in the Bill of Rights and embraced in the Ninth Amendment.

We should rejoice that there is resistance to gubernatorial ignorance and arrogance that disregards the Bill of Rights. We need resistance to tyranny in order to stay free. Power unresisted continues to grow and to corrupt. History teaches that most people prefer the illusion of safety to the cacophony of liberty. The only reason we have civil liberties today is because generations of determined minorities — starting with the revolutionaries in the 1770s — have fought for them.

Today, we are governed by dangerous men and women. For they have taken away our ability to make personal choices, and they have used force to compel compliance. In doing that, they have not only violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, they also have committed the criminal acts of nullifying our rights. By using the powers of state governments to do this, they have made themselves candidates for federal criminal prosecutions when saner days return.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The Best of Andrew P. Napolitano

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Self-Defense and ‘Taking the Law into Your Own Hands.’ – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

Things are likely to get worse. A story in The New York Times, a paper very sympathetic to the BLM hoodlums, admits that rioters plan to assault suburban white areas. They will demand that the white residents, who are often elderly, bow down to them and surrender their homes.

In other words, you are a vigilante if you exercise your basic right of self-defense, without the permission of the predatory State that support the rioters and looters.

Danny Coulson was horror-stricken about people hiring private bodyguards, but what is wrong with that? Instead, we should support our basic right to self-defense. This is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but our rights don’t depend on the State and its Constitution. By the way, the recently sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to end the individual right to keep and bear arms. Our rights come from natural law, and only the free market can enforce them and protect us.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/lew-rockwell/self-defense-and-taking-the-law-into-your-own-hands/

By

The riots in Louisville are only the latest in a long string of violent, raging mob riots by the criminal Marxist BLM movement, their mostly-white “antifa” thuggish allies, and assorted looters. In this case, “Two police officers have been shot in Louisville, Ky., amid riots following the announcement of an indictment in the shooting of Breonna Taylor. Louisville chief of police Robert Schroeder confirmed that the officers were shot and were taken to a local hospital. Schroeder told reporters that one of the officers was undergoing surgery but in stable condition, while the other was alert and stable. Police have arrested one suspect in the shooting. . . after a grand jury charged just one of the officers involved in the shooting of Taylor in a botched drug bust. Rioters clashed with police throughout Louisville, burning trash cans and calling to defund the city police department.”

Last May, hundreds of businesses in the state’s Twin Cities — Minneapolis and St. Paul — were damaged or looted during four days of unrest. In Los Angeles, “National Guard troops arrived in the nation’s second-largest city overnight after a fourth day of protests Saturday saw demonstrators clash repeatedly with officers, torch police vehicles and pillage businesses. Mayor Eric Garcetti said he asked Gov. Gavin Newsom for 500 to 700 members of the Guard to assist the 10,000 Los Angeles Police Department officers. The California National Guard is being deployed to Los Angeles overnight to support our local response to maintain peace and safety on the streets of our city,’ said the mayor, who ordered a rare citywide curfew until Sunday morning. Firefighters responded to dozens of fires, and scores of businesses were damaged. One of the hardest-hit areas was the area around the Grove, a popular high-end outdoor mall west of downtown where hundreds of protesters swarmed the area, showering police with rocks and other objects and vandalizing shops. About 3,000 protesters demonstrated in Brooklyn, and were pushed back by NYPD officers releasing chemical mace after the protests turned violent. A woman was arrested and charged with attempted murder after she threw a Molotov cocktail into an occupied police car.

Things are likely to get worse. A story in The New York Times, a paper very sympathetic to the BLM hoodlums, admits that rioters plan to assault suburban white areas. They will demand that the white residents, who are often elderly, bow down to them and surrender their homes. “Nearly four months after the killing of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police, some protesters against police brutality are taking a more confrontational — and personal — approach. The marches in Portland are increasingly moving to residential and largely white neighborhoods, where demonstrators with bullhorns shout for people to come ‘out of your house and into the street’ and demonstrate their support. These more aggressive protests target ordinary people going about their lives, especially those who decline to demonstrate allegiance to the cause. That includes a diner in Washington who refused to raise her fist to show support for Black Lives Matter, or, in several cities, confused drivers who happened upon the protests.”

Ordinary Americans cannot rely on the police to protect them. In many cases, leftwing governors and mayors have ordered to police to stand down. For them, solidarity with the rioters is more important than the lives and property of decent citizens. We have seen the absurdity of rioters being called “peaceful protestors” when videos show cities aflame. When the police do their duty and counter the violence of the thugs, they are vilified as racists, indicted, and even shot at and killed. In these circumstances, they are hardly likely to stay on the job. If the police don’t protect you, you have no legal recourse, and in some places, police won’t even investigate cases of looting. “’Neither the Constitution, nor state law, imposes a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,’ said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. ‘Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.’ The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are ‘in custody,’ he pointed out.”

What then are we supposed to do? In an interview on the Tucker Carlson show September 23, Danny Coulson, a retired Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, condemned the rioters. But he thought that there was something even worse than the burning and looting, and this was the main reason he condemned them. Their actions might lead to “vigilante justice”. People must not take the law into their own hands—that could lead to chaos. Instead, we must unify around support of the police.

His advice is useless, and it rests on a false premise. How can we support the police, when they aren’t protecting us? His advice is like urging us to put out a fire with a hose unattached to a hydrant. The false premise is that vigilante justice is bad. Is it? Let’s look at the definition of the term: “Vigilantism is the act of enforcement, investigation or punishment of perceived offenses without legal authority. A vigilante (from Spanish vigilante) is practitioner of vigilantism.”

In other words, you are a vigilante if you exercise your basic right of self-defense, without the permission of the predatory State that support the rioters and looters. In fact, if people defended and protected themselves, the result would not be chaos, but a far better system than we have now. As the great Murray Rothbard explained, people in a free market society would defend themselves by hiring private protection agencies. The agencies would compete to provide the services customers wanted, rather than cater to the whim of a mob or promote venality and power-seeking, as officials of the State do now. As Murray again and again stressed, the free market is always better at supplying goods and services than the State, and protection and defense are no exceptions.

He explains in For A New Liberty, “Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients’ friends or customers. A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue, rather than have a prohibitive curfew imposed on innocent—and paying—customers. A free market in police would reward efficient and courteous police protection to customers and penalize any falling off from this standard. No longer would there be the current disjunction between service and payment inherent in all government operations, a disjunction which means that police, like all other government agencies, acquire their revenue, not voluntarily and competitively from consumers, but from the taxpayers coercively. In fact, as government police have become increasingly inefficient, consumers have been turning more and more to private forms of protection. We have already mentioned block or neighborhood protection. There are also private guards, insurance companies, private detectives, and such increasingly sophisticated equipment as safes, locks, and closed-circuit TV and burglar alarms. . . Every reader of detective fiction knows that private insurance detectives are far more efficient than the police in recovering stolen property. Not only is the insurance company impelled by economics to serve the consumer—and thereby try to avoid paying benefits—but the major focus of the insurance company is very different from that of the police. The police, standing as they do for a mythical ‘society,’ are primarily interested in catching and punishing the criminal; restoring the stolen loot to the victim is strictly secondary. To the insurance company and its detectives, on the other hand, the prime concern is recovery of the loot, and apprehension and punishment of the criminal is secondary to the prime purpose of aiding the victim of crime. Here we see again the difference between a private firm impelled to serve the customer-victim of crime and the public police, which is under no such economic compulsion.”

Private law enforcement isn’t just a theoretical idea, as we can see from British and American history. In Britain, “Throughout the period 1674 to 1829 many victims of crime were able to identify and apprehend the culprits before contacting a constable or a justice of the peace to secure their arrest. . . Londoners continued to help apprehend suspected criminals. As the Proceedings frequently illustrate, cries of ‘stop thief!’ or ‘murder!’ from victims often successfully elicited the assistance of passers-by. . . victims frequently paid thief-takers to locate and apprehend suspects. Moreover, the difficulties the authorities had in identifying and apprehending criminals led them to offer rewards to those whose arrests led to the conviction of serious criminals, and pardons to accomplices who were willing to turn in their confederates. Increasingly, ordinary Londoners left the task of securing criminals to people who were motivated to do so by the prospect of financial or other rewards.”

We see the same thing in America. “The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the ‘Watch,’ or private-for-profit policing, which is called ‘The Big Stick’ . . . These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States.”

Danny Coulson was horror-stricken about people hiring private bodyguards, but what is wrong with that? Instead, we should support our basic right to self-defense. This is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but our rights don’t depend on the State and its Constitution. By the way, the recently sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to end the individual right to keep and bear arms. Our rights come from natural law, and only the free market can enforce them and protect us.

 
Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Abolishing the Police Won’t Mean Abolishing State Violence | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 16, 2020

Places that actually see private enterprise and private property as a good thing, as something that is socially beneficial, actually can get along well without the practically autonomous police agencies. Unfortunately, it seems that on both the local and national levels, demands for more confiscation and coercion seem to be directed into a predatory philosophy of governance.

In current times, police forces in most states and municipalities are more interested in collecting revenues from fines in order to prop up their own pay and benefits and to provide more money for general government coffers. Eric Markowitz writes in the New Yorker:

The question of whether or not abolishment of police forces would automatically lead to bloodshed, violence, and utter chaos is not easily answerable, because the various political landscapes are not even. Take Minneapolis again. The governing mentality there is thoroughly progressive, which incorporates the belief that all facets of life should be governed by progressive entities, including the right (which progressives consider to be nonexistent) to protect one’s life and property.

Years ago, I was discussing a law in Canada that makes it illegal for one to defend oneself against physical aggression from others if that defense involves what authorities call an “offensive” weapon. The man told me that Canadians are “proud” of that policy because, in his words, it limits violence. (That means that if someone attacks me, although it might be violent, my fighting back using an “offensive” weapon adds to the violence, which is self-evident.)

https://mises.org/wire/abolishing-police-wont-mean-abolishing-state-violence?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=4ef0911661-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-4ef0911661-228343965

The aftermath of the May 25 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis has set off riots, protests, looting, and waves of social demands and changes that will take years to sort out. Yet perhaps the most interesting and provocative development has been the demand for cities to “defund” municipal police departments.

The all-Democrat Minneapolis City Council didn’t just discuss such a measure; indeed, they voted unanimously on June 7 to defund and disband the police department in a measure that members claimed would improve public safety. Tax funds previously earmarked for the police will go, council members said, to social service agencies.

Not surprisingly, the standard response from many people (and especially conservatives) has been near disbelief, with the expressed opinion that the move is “insane.” Bronson Stocking of Townhall writes: “The mob won’t be happy until police are abolished and complete anarchy, like we’ve seen in Minneapolis recently, becomes the new normal.”

Likewise, Patrick Buchanan writes in the American Conservative:

The “Ferguson Effect” will take hold. Cops will back off from confronting the lawless and violent. Criminals will see an opening to seize opportunities. The urban poor who look to the police as their only protection will stay inside and lock their doors. And small businesses, realizing the cops may not be there, will sell and move out.

As I read my conservative friends on sites like Facebook, they take it as a given that any move to eliminate government police forces automatically will result in something akin to a Death Wish landscape of criminals killing, burning, raping, and looting the cities. In other words, they instinctively believe that the police truly are the “Thin Blue Line” that protects law-abiding people from harm intended by criminals.

Capitalists Are the Real Criminals

People accept this narrative on its face, as though it were true simply by its utterance, and it reflects the larger belief that humans don’t cooperate peacefully with each other unless the authorities force them to do so. On that subject Buchanan, Nancy Pelosi, and Bernie Sanders are on the same page. Furthermore, they are likely to see agencies like police forces at governing levels from municipalities to the FBI (and even the CIA) as entities that exist for our good, to protect those who are law-abiding from the Bad People.

We see this fundamental belief extended to the business world, and there is very little difference between the pages of the American Conservative and hard-left publications like The Nation or Jacobin. The theme is that what might seem to be socially cooperative behavior—individuals buying and selling voluntarily in the marketplace—actually is fundamentally coercive, with businesses being predatory entities. The more successful the business, the more proof that it gained that success by preying on others.

For example, when the rioting and looting in US cities was at its height, Bernie Sanders declared that business owners have been “looting” the poor for forty years which would seem to be a backhanded endorsement of the violence and theft taking place, or, at the very least, a justification for the looting and burning. Again, because Sanders and his followers view business activity as violent theft and government action as either peaceful or promoting peace, there would be no reason in their minds to have police protect private property or its owners, since “property is theft.” (One doubts that Sanders believes that about his own three houses and his other personal property, but socialists have lived with that disconnect for years and always get away with it.)

Certainly at least some Minneapolis city council members seem to believe that private property owners should be subject to break-ins and home invasions as a form of social justice. Lisa Bender, the city council president and the leader of the abolish-the-police movement, effectively said that having property protection is “privilege.” To be fair, she was saying it in the context of how white suburbanites have reasonable expectations that the police will offer some semblance of protection while others are not so fortunate:

Because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.

Policing as a Revenue Racket

She is not entirely wrong. People living in high-crime areas often do not see police as their protectors, and that is not, as some conservatives might believe, unreasonable. The police officer often is not their friend, but neither is the typical police officer anyone else’s friend. The reason is that no one reasonably can conclude that modern police forces exist to protect ordinary citizens. In fact, the US Supreme Court already has ruled that police are under no legal obligation to protect anyone.

In current times, police forces in most states and municipalities are more interested in collecting revenues from fines in order to prop up their own pay and benefits and to provide more money for general government coffers. Eric Markowitz writes in the New Yorker:

Alexes Harris is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Washington and the author of “A Pound of Flesh.” Published in June, the book analyzes the rise of monetary sanctions in the criminal-justice system. Harris argues that jurisdictions have increasingly relied on levying fines for minor infractions—broken tail-lights, vagrancy, traffic violations—as a way to generate municipal revenue. For instance, a Department of Justice investigation revealed that, in 2013, police in Ferguson, Missouri, issued arrest warrants for nine thousand people, almost all for municipal-code violations such as failing to pay a fine or missing court appearances. Doing so allowed the city to collect $2.4 million in fines and fees, the second highest source of income for the city, behind taxes.

Protected from lawsuits by qualified immunity and protected from accountability by their unions, police in the USA have evolved into something akin to an occupying army that declares itself to be beyond criticism and beyond control by the underlings that it claims “to protect and serve.” Although we can decry this situation, we should not be surprised.

We Need State Control to Ensure Either “Order” or “Social Justice”

Modern police forces are yet one more creation of progressivism, the view that we should be governed by dispassionate and well-trained “experts” instead of politicians. From dealing with pandemics to investigating crimes, the idea is that the “experts” should have control and that we should always listen to them and do what they tell us. To do otherwise is “taking the law into your own hands,” which always is portrayed as being antisocial.

The police clearly fit within that viewpoint, which has become almost second nature to most Americans. Liberal progressives, who almost always believe that “training” will “solve” almost any difficulty when it comes to government agents exerting authority over others, are adamant that individuals should defer to government at every level, whether it be education (including Harvard University’s recent attack on home schooling, a thoroughly progressive initiative), policing, and the home itself.

For example, the city council of Minneapolis did not call for refunding the tax dollars saved through disbanding the police to the city’s taxpayers, but rather have announced plans to transfer that money to government social programs. In other words, the progressives there plan to help expand what is called the therapeutic state in the belief that government mental health “experts” will counsel people into living better lives.

On the conservative side, support for the police seems to be a more nebulous support for an ordered state. At the risk of seeming trivial, this viewpoint often is explained on the popular CBS cop show Bluebloods. During one of their famous dinner table discussions, someone asks why killing a cop is worse than killing an ordinary person. Frank Reagan, the fictional New York City police commissioner (played by Tom Selleck) replies that the police represent order and that attacking the police is an attack upon the order of society itself.

In the end, we are dealing with similar belief systems that don’t have anything but blind faith in the systems as an authority. On the right, the police protect society, because, well, that is what people believe and even if it is not true, they believe it anyway: the police protect all of us from violent people, and if they are disbanded, society will degenerate into lawless chaos. That police forces have evolved into insular and autonomous entities that have become a law unto themselves does not seem to take root in at least some conservative thinking.

On the progressive left, there is the unending belief in the therapeutic state. If there is a role for official policing, it is to aid in the fight against capitalism and bigotry. Thus, the left-wing district attorney in San Francisco, Chesa Boudin, can declare that his office will concentrate its efforts on prosecuting landlords who, in his view, constitute a criminal class. Democratic politicians such as Beto O’Rourke can call for unleashing the tax police upon religious groups that do not adhere to the Left’s sexual orthodoxy. So, those on the left who might call for abolishment of the police still want government to have at least some police powers to go after people they don’t like.

The Left Does Not Permit Private Self-Defense

The question of whether or not abolishment of police forces would automatically lead to bloodshed, violence, and utter chaos is not easily answerable, because the various political landscapes are not even. Take Minneapolis again. The governing mentality there is thoroughly progressive, which incorporates the belief that all facets of life should be governed by progressive entities, including the right (which progressives consider to be nonexistent) to protect one’s life and property.

Years ago, I was discussing a law in Canada that makes it illegal for one to defend oneself against physical aggression from others if that defense involves what authorities call an “offensive” weapon. The man told me that Canadians are “proud” of that policy because, in his words, it limits violence. (That means that if someone attacks me, although it might be violent, my fighting back using an “offensive” weapon adds to the violence, which is self-evident.)

There certainly would be support in Minneapolis for a similar policy, especially given that at least its political leaders consider any kind of defense of one’s life and property to be nothing more than “white privilege.” Thus, if one fits into a certain ethnicity and social/economic group, then any kind of self-defense is prima facie illegitimate. Likewise, in such a viewpoint, violence against others and their property is legitimate provided that the ones engaging in the violence are included within a certain protected group. In fact, if we are to properly interpret what Sanders declared, looting and arson actually would be considered acts of self-defense against capitalists and landlords who, in their view, are the real criminals.

Such a governing philosophy, not surprisingly, would not prevent the recent burning and looting that have scarred Minneapolis and other US cities, since this philosophy provides a justification for it. It would not take long, should this violence continue, for cities to become totally unlivable. Perhaps it should not be surprising that Minneapolis police have engaged in predatory behavior, since the entire governing philosophy of that city seems to endorse it.

However, we also know that, at least before the riots, Minneapolis had had a reputation of being a prosperous city and a livable place, and there certainly are many places in Minnesota itself where violent crime almost is nonexistent. The business atmosphere in the Twin Cities is highly rated and overall quality of life is rated as excellent. And then the riots came, exposing not only an underbelly of discontent, but also a governing philosophy that simply cannot deal effectively with what is happening.

One doubts that such a progressive governing philosophy would permit property owners to band together to protect their belongings without running afoul of lawmakers and their worldview. After all, if protecting one’s property is nothing more than a manifestation of “privilege,” and the real looters are those who own property, then there is nothing left to do but to turn loose the mobs.

There are other places in Minnesota and in the USA, however, where the municipal police model actually does more harm than good. After all, what is municipal policing? It is the forced outsourcing of protection in which the “protectors” “capture” the protection apparatus and act not as real protectors, but rather like a mafia that demand protection money. It would be patently dishonest to say that people cannot come together to create something that is more effective and more just.

Unfortunately, policing is caught between two narratives, neither of which adequately and accurately describes the current social and economic climate. If the worldview of people in a community is one that is open to exchange and voluntary cooperation, then an outside police force really is not necessary.

However, in an atmosphere in which private property and business owners are portrayed as the enemy that should be driven out, even an outside police agency will be limited in its effective response and most likely would opt out of most duties, which is exactly what we have seen in cities once the looting started. At very best, police in these kinds of communities (such as Baltimore, Detroit, and other dysfunctional places) will put a band-aid over a cancerous tumor and ultimately will opt out of the protection business altogether.

In other words, governing worldviews matter. Governments led by the philosophy that private property and private enterprise are coercive and parasitical and should be smashed can only replace one coercive municipal force with another that is just as bad. After all, the socialism that so many of these politicians demand is one that is totally dependent upon massive amounts of state-sponsored violence and coercion, although in the short run attacks on businesses and private property are useful in that they eliminate business owners from the political equation.

Places that actually see private enterprise and private property as a good thing, as something that is socially beneficial, actually can get along well without the practically autonomous police agencies. Unfortunately, it seems that on both the local and national levels, demands for more confiscation and coercion seem to be directed into a predatory philosophy of governance.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Minneapolis Riots Are a Reminder That Police Don’t Protect You or Your Property | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 3, 2020

A failure to protect taxpaying citizens from violence and crime in a wide variety of situations is standard operating procedure for police departments that are under no legal obligation to protect anyone, and where “officer safety” is the number one priority. The lesson to be learned here is that the alleged “social contract” between citizens and the state is a one-way street: you pay taxes for police “services,” and the police may or may not give you anything in return.

Those who proactively attempt to defend themselves fare little better. In 2018, Colorado resident Richard Black used a firearm to defend his grandson against an intruder. Unfortunately, someone called the police. When officers arrived, they opened fire on Black, even though he was only a threat to the criminal intruder. 

The lesson to be learned from all this is that it is foolhardy, to say the least, to rely on law enforcement officers to intervene to provide “safety” when troubles arise.

https://mises.org/wire/minneapolis-riots-are-reminder-police-dont-protect-you-or-your-property

Looting and arson have followed what began as peaceful protests in response to the apparent killing of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin, a now former member of the Minneapolis Police Department.

But whatever was the spark that set off the current round of rioting in the Twin Cities area, it is clear that most property owners and residents will have to fend for themselves where riots have taken place. In other words, any unfortunate shopkeeper or resident who finds himself in the path of the rioters ought to just assume that police won’t be around to provide any protection from the mob.

For example, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports:

The police station on E. Lake Street has been the epicenter of protests this week….Nearby, Minnehaha Lake Wine & Spirits, the target of looters the night before, also was set ablaze.…On Wednesday night, a man was fatally shot and crowds looted and burned buildings on E. Lake Street late into the night.

Earlier in the day, in St. Paul, looters broke windows, stormed through battered-down doors and snatched clothes, phones, shoes and other merchandise from shops along University Avenue near the intersection of Pascal Street. Officers formed a barricade in front of Target. But police were absent a block away at T.J. Maxx, where looters smashed down the door and fled with heaps of clothing piled on shopping carts.

Many business owners who now face destruction at the hands of rioters can scarcely afford it:

Many of the shops destroyed along this stretch of E. Lake Street are immigrant-owned businesses—many of which were already struggling during the coronavirus pandemic. “Now it’s worse,” said Roberto Hernandez, who stood guard outside his nutrition store for five hours to fend off looters. (emphasis added)

Another man who was working to open a sports bar in the area later this year, saw his bar destroyed. Needless to say, with only a few exceptions, the police weren’t around to “protect and serve.”

Admittedly, in cases like this week’s riots, the police are heavily outnumbered and unable to provide any sort of general protection from rioters. Even if individual officers were engaging in heroic behavior to turn rioters away from potential victims, there would be little they could do to confront all offenders.

But heroics or not, the outcome for victims is the same: they must rely on self-defense, formal private security, or private armed volunteers likely to be labeled as “vigilantes.”

A failure to protect taxpaying citizens from violence and crime in a wide variety of situations is standard operating procedure for police departments that are under no legal obligation to protect anyone, and where “officer safety” is the number one priority. The lesson to be learned here is that the alleged “social contract” between citizens and the state is a one-way street: you pay taxes for police “services,” and the police may or may not give you anything in return.

Police Are Not Obligated to Provide Protection

It is now a well-established legal principle in the United States that police officers and police departments are not legally responsible for refusing to intervene in cases where private citizens are in imminent danger or even in the process of being victimized. The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay for police services year in and year out.

[RELATED: “Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again” by Ryan McMaken]

In cases of civil unrest, of course, be prepared to receive approximately nothing from police in terms of protecting property, life, or limb.

During the 2014 riots that followed the police killing of Michael Brown, for example, shopkeepers were forced to hire private security, and many had to rely on armed volunteers for protection from looters. “There’s no police,” one Ferguson shopkeeper told Fox News at the time. “We trusted the police to keep it peaceful; they didn’t do their job.”

More famously, shopkeepers during the Los Angeles riots defended their shops with private firearms:

“Where are the police? Where are the police?” [shopkeeper Chang] Lee whispered over and over from his rooftop perch. Lee would not see law enforcement for three days—only fellow Korean-Americans, who would be photographed by news agencies looking like armed militia.

Officer Safety Comes First

During the Columbine school shootings in Colorado in 1999, the sheriff department’s “first responders” formed a perimeter outside the building and refused to enter, because the situation was deemed too risky for law enforcement. Meanwhile, children were being slaughtered inside.

Nearly twenty years later, law enforcement officers at the Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, cowered behind vehicles while students were murdered inside the school.

But even in cases where police are willing to enter the premises and attempt to subdue violent criminals, the victim may find law enforcement officers to be of little help. According to 2008 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, police response times to violent crime–related calls exceeded eleven minutes one-third of the time. Things were no better twelve years earlier in 1996, when a similar survey was conducted. Now, twelve years after 2008, there’s no reason to assume anything has improved.

Eleven minutes is a long time to wait when dealing with a violent criminal.

Moreover, when police do arrive, don’t expect a competent response. The cases of Atatiana Jefferson and Botham Jean provide some helpful reminders.

According to multiple accounts of the Jefferson case, one of Jefferson’s neighbors called police to “check up” on Jefferson, fearing that she might be in danger. Jefferson was soon shot dead in her own living room by law enforcement. The shooter—a now former cop named Aaron Dean—entered Jefferson’s private property unannounced in the middle of the night. He peered into Jefferson’s windows, and within seconds the officer had shot Jefferson dead. Jefferson had been playing videogames with her nephew.

A year earlier, former police officer Amber Guyger was sentenced to ten years in prison for unlawfully shooting Botham Jean in his own apartment. At the time, Guyger was a police officer returning home from work. She illegally entered the wrong apartment and promptly shot Jean—the unit’s lawful resident—dead.

And, of course, there is the case of Justine Damond, who called the Minneapolis Police Department to report a possible sexual assault near her home. When police arrived, they shot Damond dead, for no known reason other than hysterical fear on their part.

Those who proactively attempt to defend themselves fare little better. In 2018, Colorado resident Richard Black used a firearm to defend his grandson against an intruder. Unfortunately, someone called the police. When officers arrived, they opened fire on Black, even though he was only a threat to the criminal intruder.

The lesson to be learned from all this is that it is foolhardy, to say the least, to rely on law enforcement officers to intervene to provide “safety” when troubles arise.

After all, experience has shown that police are thoroughly unmotivated when it comes to preventing, or even investigating true violent crime. Confronting violent criminals is dangerous and costly. Thus, police departments are geared much more around harassment of petty offenders (such as George Floyd) and going after small-time drug offenders while confiscating property under asset forfeiture laws.

This provides revenue to pad agency budgets while prioritizing the targeting of easy marks, rather than violent offenders. In the United States, more than half of serious crimes are never solved.

And yet, through it all, we hear again and again the myth that law enforcement agencies will provide protection, retrieve stolen property, and keep the peace. Many people in Minneapolis are now experiencing the reality.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Rutherford Institute :: Deadly Distractions: Laying the Groundwork for the Next Civil War | By John W. Whitehead |

Posted by M. C. on January 23, 2020

History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a totalitarian state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/deadly_distractions_laying_the_groundwork_for_the_next_civil_war

By John W. Whitehead

And so it continues.

This impeachment fiasco is merely the latest in a never-ending series of distractions, distortions, and political theater aimed at diverting the public’s attention from the sinister advances of the American Police State.

Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted, diverted or mesmerized by the cheap theater tricks.

This impeachment spectacle is Shakespearean in its scope: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Nothing is the key word here.

Despite the wall-to-wall media coverage, nothing will change.

Mark my words: the government will remain as corrupt and self-serving as ever, dominated by two political factions that pretend to be at odds with each other all the while moving in lockstep to maintain the status quo.

So President Trump’s legal team can grandstand all they want about the impeachment trial being “an affront to the Constitution” and “a dangerous perversion of the Constitution,” but that’s just smoke and mirrors.

You know what is really “an affront to the Constitution”? The U.S. government.

We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast.

The republic has fallen.

The Deep State’s plot to take over America has succeeded.

The American system of representative government has been overthrown by a profit-driven, militaristic, corporate oligarchy bent on total control and global domination through the imposition of martial law here at home and by fomenting wars abroad.

Even now, we are being pushed and prodded towards a civil war, not because the American people are so divided but because that’s how corrupt governments control a populace (i.e., divide and conquer).

These are dangerous times.

These are indeed dangerous times but not because of violent crime, which remains at an all-time low, or because of terrorism, which is statistically rare, or because the borders are being invaded by foreign armies, which data reports from the Department of Homeland Security refute.

No, the real danger that we face comes from none other than the U.S. government and the powers it has granted to its standing armies to rob, steal, cheat, harass, detain, brutalize, terrorize, torture and kill American citizens with immunity.

The danger “we the people” face comes from masked invaders on the government payroll who crash through our doors in the dark of night, shoot our dogs, and terrorize our families.

This danger comes from militarized henchmen on the government payroll who demand absolute obedience, instill abject fear, and shoot first and ask questions later.

This danger comes from greedy, power-hungry bureaucrats on the government payroll who have little to no understanding of their constitutional limits.

This danger comes from greedy politicians and corporations for whom profit trumps principle.

You want to know about the state of our union? It’s downright scary.

Consider, if you will, all of the dastardly, devious, diabolical, dangerous, debilitating, deceitful, dehumanizing, demonic, depraved, dishonorable, disillusioning, discriminatory, dictatorial schemes inflicted on “we the people” by a bureaucratic, totalitarian regime that has long since ceased to be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later, such as the 16-year-old teenager who skipped school only to be shot by police after they mistook him for a fleeing burglar. Then there was the unarmed black man in Texas “who was pursued and shot in the back of the neck by Austin Police… after failing to properly identify himself and leaving the scene of an unrelated incident.” And who could forget the 19-year-old Seattle woman who was accidentally shot in the leg by police after she refused to show her hands? What is increasingly common, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands.

Americans are little more than pocketbooks to fund the police state. If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, or bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities. Rubbing salt in the wound, even monetary awards in lawsuits against government officials who are found guilty of wrongdoing are paid by the taxpayer.

Americans are no longer innocent until proven guilty. We once operated under the assumption that you were innocent until proven guilty. Due in large part to rapid advances in technology and a heightened surveillance culture, the burden of proof has been shifted so that the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty has been usurped by a new norm in which all citizens are suspects. This is exemplified by police practices of stopping and frisking people who are merely walking down the street and where there is no evidence of wrongdoing. Likewise, by subjecting Americans to full-body scans and license-plate readers without their knowledge or compliance and then storing the scans for later use, the government—in cahoots with the corporate state—has erected the ultimate suspect society. In such an environment, we are all potentially guilty of some wrongdoing or other.

Americans no longer have a right to self-defense. In the wake of various shootings in recent years, “gun control” has become a resounding theme. Those advocating gun reform see the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms as applying only to government officials. As a result, even Americans who legally own firearms are being treated with suspicion and, in some cases, undue violence. In one case, a Texas man had his home subjected to a no-knock raid and was shot in his bed after police, attempting to deliver a routine search warrant, learned that he was in legal possession of a firearm. In another incident, a Florida man who was licensed to carry a concealed firearm found himself detained for two hours during a routine traffic stop in Maryland while the arresting officer searched his vehicle in vain for the man’s gun, which he had left at home. Incidentally, the Trump Administration has done more to crack down on Second Amendment rights than anything the Obama Administration ever managed.

Americans no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

Americans no longer have a say about what their children are exposed to in school. Incredibly, the government continues to insist that parents essentially forfeit their rights when they send their children to a public school. This growing tension over whether young people, especially those in the public schools, are essentially wards of the state, to do with as government officials deem appropriate, in defiance of the children’s constitutional rights and those of their parents, is reflected in the debate over sex education programs that expose young people to all manner of sexual practices and terminology, zero tolerance policies that strip students of any due process rights, let alone parental involvement in school discipline, and Common Core programs that teach students to be test-takers rather than critical thinkers.

Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, citizens were considered equals with law enforcement officials. Authorities were rarely permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And it was not uncommon for police officers to be held personally liable for trespass when they wrongfully invaded a citizen’s home. Unlike today, early Americans could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant—which the police had to allow citizens to read before arresting them. (Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons and tasers would be nothing short of suicidal.) As police forces across the country continue to be transformed into outposts of the military, with police agencies acquiring military-grade hardware in droves, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield.

Americans no longer have a right to bodily integrity. Court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, strip search us, and probe us intimately. Accounts are on the rise of individuals—men and women—being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops. Remember the New Mexico man who was subjected to a 12-hour ordeal of anal probes, X-rays, enemas, and finally a colonoscopy—all because he allegedly rolled through a stop sign?

Americans no longer have a right to the expectation of privacy. Despite the staggering number of revelations about government spying on Americans’ phone calls, Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, Google searches, emails, bookstore and grocery purchases, bank statements, commuter toll records, etc., Congress, the president and the courts have done little to nothing to counteract these abuses. Instead, they seem determined to accustom us to life in this electronic concentration camp.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the justices of the Supreme Court have become the architects of the American police state in which we now live, while the lower courts have appointed themselves courts of order, concerned primarily with advancing the government’s agenda, no matter how unjust or illegal.

Americans no longer have a representative government. We have moved beyond the era of representative government and entered a new age, let’s call it the age of authoritarianism. In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups. It is not overstating matters to say that Congress, which has done its best to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance, may well be the most self-serving, semi-corrupt institution in America.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism: a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled. Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes. Sound familiar? Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests. We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism. Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many.

History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a totalitarian state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom. Even with its constantly shifting terrain, this topsy-turvy travesty of law and government has become America’s new normal. From Clinton to Bush, then Obama and now Trump, it’s as if we’ve been caught in a time loop, forced to re-live the same thing over and over again: the same assaults on our freedoms, the same disregard for the rule of law, the same subservience to the Deep State, and the same corrupt, self-serving government that exists only to amass power, enrich its shareholders and ensure its continued domination.

Elections will not save us.

I haven’t even touched on the corporate state, the military industrial complex, SWAT team raids, invasive surveillance technology, zero tolerance policies in the schools, overcriminalization, or privatized prisons, to name just a few, but what I have touched on should be enough to show that the landscape of our freedoms has already changed dramatically from what it once was and will no doubt continue to deteriorate unless Americans can find a way to wrest back control of their government and reclaim their freedoms.

There can be no denying that the world is indeed a dangerous place, but what the president and his cohorts fail to acknowledge is that it’s the government that poses the gravest threat to our freedoms and way of life, and no amount of politicking, parsing or pandering will change that.

It is easy to be diverted, distracted and amused by the antics of politicians, the pomp and circumstance of awards shows, athletic events, and entertainment news, and the feel-good, wrapped-in-the-flag evangelism that passes for religion today.

What is far more difficult to face up to is the reality of life in America, where unemployment, poverty, inequality, injustice and violence by government agents are increasingly norms, and where “we the people” are at a distinct disadvantage in the face of the government elite’s power grabs, greed and firepower.

The Constitution doesn’t stand a chance against a federalized, globalized standing army protected by legislative, judicial and executive branches that are all on the same side, no matter what political views they subscribe to: suffice it to say, they are not on our side or the side of freedom.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the powers-that-be want us to remain distracted, divided, alienated from each other based on our politics, our bank accounts, our religion, our race and our value systems. Yet as George Orwell observed, “The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”

You either believe in freedom or you don’t. It’s that simple.

Everything else is just a deadly distraction. As Orwell observed in 1984:

“All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.”

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TYRANNY ALERT: Virginia to OUTLAW Krav Maga, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, kickboxing, Tai Chi, firearms instruction and self-defense training under proposed law SB64 – NaturalNews.com

Posted by M. C. on November 29, 2019

Real Virginians already know this is a do-or-die moment for the future of your state. Get to work, or you will lose everything. The Democrats aren’t just coming for your guns; they’re coming for your humanity and your very right to exist.

I am guessing this does not apply to government workers with badges and guns.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-11-27-tyranny-alert-virginia-to-outlaw-krav-maga-brazilian-jiu-jitsi-kickboxing-firearms-instruction-sb64.html

(Natural News) The State of Virginia, now entirely run by truly insane Democrats who support infanticide and child murder, is proposing a new 2020 law known as SB64 (see link here) which will be taken up by the Democrat-run Senate beginning January 8, 2020.

The law would instantly transform all martial arts instructors into criminal felons. This includes instructors who teach kickboxing, BJJ, Krav Maga, boxing and even Capoeira.

It would also criminalize all firearms training classes, including concealed carry classes.

It would even criminalize a father teaching his own son how to use a hunting rifle.

Specifically, the law says that a person “is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity” (a class 5 felony) if that person:

“Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons…”

The phrase “technique capable of causing injury or death to persons” covers all forms of martial arts and self-defense training, including Krav Maga, BJJ, boxing and other contact martial arts such as Tae Kwon Do or Tai Chi.

Under the proposed law, all forms of self-defense training — including hand-to-hand martial arts training — would be considered “paramilitary activity,” even if the training consists of private classes involving just one instructor and one student. That’s because every form of martial arts training imparts skills which could be used to cause injury to other persons.

In fact, according to the language of the law, just “one” person learning such arts is a felony crime, which means that watching a DVD on Krav Maga would be a felony crime

A person shall be is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.

2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to §30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to §30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

See the full text yourself at this link.

This is what happens when Democrats seize power

This insane level of tyranny is happening because Democrats now run the entire legislative and executive branches of the Virginia state government. Governor Ralph Northam — who openly confessed to advocating infanticide and child murder — is leading the charge to turn the great state of Virginia into a modern-day slave camp where no citizen is allowed to defend herself against the tyranny of the local government (which has gone completely insane and is now run by relentless criminals)…

Be seeing you

Famous Virginians - An Adventure of the American Mind ...

Is this the same Virginia?

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Live and Let Live’ Applied to Guns – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 21, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/marc-j-victor/live-and-let-live-applied-to-guns/

By

Congratulations!  If you are fortunate enough to be reading this article, you won the lottery of birth.  You were born at the best time, so far, to be alive.  You are also likely to have been born in one of the best places on the planet.  Like me, you are spectacularly lucky.  Considering our circumstances, most of which we had very little or nothing to do with, we are indeed hugely fortunate.  I urge you to pause, take a deep breath, and reflect on this observation for a moment before you read on.

Let’s Not Fight the Facts

There are many things I wish were different about the world.  I’d love to live in a world where all adults were competent and peaceful.  I don’t worship guns, nor do I demonize them.  I’d be happy to live in a utopian world where nobody owned guns for self-defense reasons because it was unnecessary.  As we know, such a world is pure fantasy.

When I served in the United States Marine Corps, I had the opportunity to fire many different weapons; several were high powered automatic ones.  I respect them as tools.  I also respect that some people enjoy spending their time safely and responsibly practicing their marksmanship with weapons.  While I prefer to spend my time doing other things, I respect the rights of competent adults to peacefully do what they prefer.

While we may wish the facts of reality were otherwise, reasonable people who are committed to truth ought to generally agree with the following statements:

  1. There are more than 350 million civilian owned guns currently in the United States.  As such, guns will continue to exist in the United States forever;
  2. Gunsby themselves don’t hurt or assault anyone.  They are simply tools.  Guns are often used by people for good and peaceful purposes like self-defense, deterrence or sporting events.  Guns have saved and protected countless lives.  Guns are also often used by people for bad purposes like initiating violence against others;
  3. Like all other dangerous tools, horrible accidents with guns will occur due to both negligence and recklessness. Although we should endeavor to reduce such accidents, there is no way to prevent all accidents with guns;
  4. Most people who want a gun either currently have one, can easily obtain one or will soon be able to print or otherwise manufacture one.  As such, although some policies could make it more difficult for “bad guys” to get a gun, such people will always be able to obtain guns regardless of whatever policy or law applies;
  5. Some people arewilling to initiate violence against others.  Further, they cannot be reasoned out of their position.  As such, we will always have a need to repel aggressors armed with guns;
  6. No policy on guns will eliminate all gun violence;
  7. Police officers cannot protect everyone at all times;
  8. Peaceful people have afundamental legal and moral right to self-defense;
  9. A properly used gunis generally effective protection against bad guys with knives, fists and other weapons; and
  10. Although other theoretical ways are possible, the only reliable way to stop a “bad guy” with a gun is a “good guy” with a gun.

A Principled Approach

Although we live in the best of times, we don’t live in perfect times.  This is one of the most polarized times in recent history.  At the time of this writing, Donald Trump is the President of the United States.  Most likely, you either love him or hate him.  You are either “with us” or “against us.”  There are generally two positions on almost all issues today, you are either “pro” or you are “con.”  The more nuanced and sophisticated positions are generally drowned out by the reckless fervor and loud clamoring of the hostile masses on either side of any particular issue.  The gun issue is certainly no exception.

Indeed, I can think of no issue more polarized than the question of gun policy.  It has become like a religious cult on both sides.  One side worships guns while the other side demonizes them.  Both sides are mostly wrong because neither emanates from the correct principle.  There is a way to analyze and solve this issue on a principled basis that is entirely compatible with a reasonably safe and free society.  As always, the key is recognizing the important basic principle from which all laws ought to be based in order to have a civilized, reasonably safe, and free society.

Civilized people ought to agree with the principle that competent adults are entitled to both define and pursue their happiness.  Said another way, competent adults should to be in charge of their own lives and property.  They have the right to be left alone or to peacefully and fairly contract with other competent adults regarding their property.  A free society requires the proper balance between the rights of one person to do whatever they want with their property with the equally important rights of others not to be disturbed in their affairs by the activities of other people.  This is the essence of a free society.

As such, people desiring a peaceful and free society ought to agree that the initiation of either force, fraud, or coercion is wrong in all cases.  Further, it remains wrong even if the use of force, fraud, or coercion is employed to accomplish desirable results.  As an illustration of this point, imagine a thief stealing money from a person then donating the stolen money to a truly worthy charity.  The donation to charity doesn’t justify the theft.

Moreover, it isn’t only the actual initiation of either force, fraud, or coercion that violates the rights of others.  It is also the substantial threat of such an initiation that violates another’s rights.  It is for this same reason that we recognize a justified act of self-defense even before an actual use of unjustified force.  That we don’t always agree on exactly which particular circumstances allow a justified act of self-defense doesn’t mean we fail to recognize the principle that one need not wait until another’s fist hits their face before such person can legally and properly act to prevent the trespass.

As with self-defense, reasonable people sometimes disagree on what particular circumstances constitute a substantial threat of force, fraud, or coercion such that preventative action is legally allowed.  Nonetheless, the principle remains valid.  Arriving at the proper principle is the first step towards moving in the direction of a free and virtuous society.

We need to recognize that a virtuous society can’t effectively be mandated or legislated.  We must persuade our fellow brothers and sisters to be virtuous.  Indeed, parents, and not the government, must be on the front lines of this effort.  We urgently need to help each other to be better and more effective parents.  I can think of no more important task to move us closer to a virtuous society.

The fundamental principle that I have been describing, and is at the base of the legal analysis we ought to employ, can be referred to as “The Live and Let Live Principle” (hereinafter the “LLLP”).  Because the LLLP is a principle, no particular set of words can fully capture its entire meaning for all circumstances.  As such, it must be reasonably interpreted and applied to the various and countless unique factual situations that life presents.  Additionally, like any principle, reasonable minds can and do disagree with the proper implementation of the LLLP.  This fact does not negate the importance of the basic idea underlying the LLLP.

Many people already subscribe to a “live and let live” attitude.  It requires respect for the rights and sovereignty of others to both define and pursue their happiness.  This is especially important in cases where we strongly disagree with how people choose to define or peacefully pursue their happiness.  To the extent societies have adopted the LLLP, freedom and prosperity have thrived.  I have heard the LLLP often expressed, but less often implemented, throughout different cultures and groups.

People who espouse the LLLP come from all walks of life, racial backgrounds, socio-economic groups, and live in different places around the world.  They are a varied group.  Many are members of different political parties or are entirely non-political.

The LLLP recognizes and respects the sovereignty of our fellow human beings.  We should recognize we don’t all agree on moral issues.  However, the LLLP is the least common denominator of moral issues upon which civilized people generally agree.  If you think about it, most people don’t argue for the morality of initiating force against non-aggressors…

Conclusion

I recognize that, while you may have accepted my humble suggestion at the beginning and carefully read this entire article, you may yet still disagree with me about some or all of it.  I certainly respect your right to disagree with me, and I thank you for carefully considering my thoughts.  As you may have gleaned, what I’m truly most interested in is the LLLP.

If you at least truly accept the LLLP, I’ve accomplished my mission.  We are on the same team.  That we disagree on exactly how to define or how to apply the LLLP is not a big issue to me.  I’d love a world where we all at least agreed that either the substantial threat of or the actual initiation of either force, fraud, or coercion is wrong in all cases.  Stated more generally, I’d love a world where we each respected the equal rights of our fellow humans to both define and peacefully pursue their happiness using their bodies, property, money and time.

If you still haven’t been convinced about the wisdom of crafting our laws to be consistent with the LLLP, you are therefore taking the position that our laws ought to permit either the substantial threat of or the actual initiation of force, fraud or coercion at least in some cases.  Said another way, you support aggression against your fellow peaceful brothers and sisters to accomplish things you find important.  I sincerely hope you reconsider your position.

We can never achieve a civilized, reasonably safe, free, and peaceful society so long as the law permits some humans to substantially threaten or to initiate aggression against others who are peaceful.  In the final analysis, the LLLP is the real issue upon which good people need to focus their best efforts.  We each entered existence, and we will each exit at some point.  We have indeed been spectacularly lucky.  What you do with your time here is what matters.  I urge you to aim high and use your time to advocate for freedom and peace.

Be seeing you

Paul Albaugh: A Supreme Second Amendment Disgrace — The ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The US Has Devolved into a Police State – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2018

No one is getting this. Police worship by the sheeple is as strong as ever. The sheeple are dragging us down.

You try to imagine how you would react in a survival situation. I imagine my thought would be – who will hurt me more, the criminal or cops and courts.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/10/us-devolved-police-state/

Yesterday I posted at this URL — https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/09/democracy-america-oxymoron/ — a news report and two videos of a white female school teacher being removed and brutalized by a black police officer from a public meeting of school teachers with the school board while the school teacher was engaged according to the rules in normal conversation with a school board member.

The school board is comprised of both genders and both races. (Yes, I know that today we have more than two genders and there are more than two races.) Obviously, the school teacher was removed at the order of the school board or some member of it…

The meeting was about the school board’s approval of a raise in salary for a school board member equal to the annual pay of school teachers, while the teachers themselves received not one cent.

The white female teacher assaulted by the black cop wanted to know why resources needed in the classroom, where class size had increased by about one third, were instead going to school board members who really did not do anything except collect high salaries.

This is a fair and honest question, but it was one the school board did not want to hear. So the school board had the uncle Tom black cop brutalize and arrest the white female school teacher.

As I said, this is America today.

The same thing is going on everywhere…

There are many things to be learned from this school board meeting atrocity. First, it is not just white cops who assault black people. Cops, whether black or white or rainbow in color assault the general public, white, black, brown, the young, the elderly, cripples in wheel chairs, the family dog. The cops, irrespective of race brutalize the public. There is no race safety. The police are a brutal force whose only function is to suppress all dissent against the bosses. All lives matter, not just black lives. The police actually kill more white people than they kill black people.

The police are the enforcers of the thievery practiced by the One Percent. The main function of the police in America is to suppress the citizens. That is what the black uncle Tom cop is doing at the school board meeting…

Once Americans give up their right of self-defense, they are toast. My advice to every American citizen is: when you see the Second Amendment going down get out of the country as fast as you can.

Be seeing you

phoca_thumb_l_tcobb34

I am not a number. I am a free man!-Number 6

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Holiday crime and recent events in Erie-the recent rise of violent crime-have led me to re-read Jeff Cooper’s Principles of Personal Defense

Posted by M. C. on November 25, 2011

This handy little book should be read by everyone. The cover of my copy has a picture of Mr. Cooper wielding a handgun but the principles apply to martial arts, a big club, sharp fingernails or just a fast pair of feet. Techniques of defense are not discussed to any extent.

Cooper begins by stating his assumption that everyone has a right to self-defense. There are those that do not agree. Timidity and ineptitude accommodate the aggressor.

Violent crime is feasible only if its victims are cowards. A victim that fights back makes the whole business impractical Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Freedom | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »