No genuine “revolution” can be carried out through aggressive violence, or led by people who mimic the worst behavior of those who act in the name of the murderous fiction called the State. This approach is morally abhorrent and strategically suicidal. The state subsists on aggression: We should be starving the beast, rather than feeding it.
Of course, Grigg fails to mention that police are sworn to “uphold the law” and that doing so is itself almost purely aggression by any libertarian’s definition. As I’ve pointed out, and any consistent non-aggressionist has to agree, it’s hard for a soldier in the war on drugs to call himself innocent. We wouldn’t blame Iraqi’s for shooting at the uniforms of the men who ransacked his home and murdered his brother.
More importantly, if this is Grigg’s definition of aggression, and no “genuine revolution” can be carried out this way. I wonder if Grigg thinks a genuine revolution has ever taken place? I’d have a hard time coming up with a historical reference to any revolution that didn’t involve people killing government agents. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s part and parcel of the deal.
And don’t any of you give me any crap about a “democratic revolution” because that’s all it will be, crap. Libertarians learned everything they needed to know about “democracy” at the Republican convention in 2012. Oh, and by the way, democracy, as we’ve seen, is far from peaceful.
If you don’t want a revolution, then say so. That’s a perfectly valid position for one to take. I’m certainly not endorsing shooting up pizzerias or Walmarts. I don’t think meth heads are going to restore the bloody republic by going on suicide missions. But if the intellectual integrity and moral consistency are strengths of libertarianism, then you’re the ones feeding the beast when you play stupid word games like this.
If you want a revolution, that means bloodshed. If it’s a successful revolution, that means more bloodshed for government agents than free people. Right now in the United States there are roughly 245 police for every 100,000 people, but police kill civilians at a ratio greater than 4:1. There are more military conflicts going on than I can keep track of. We haven’t even begun to feel the effects of Obamacare. With every day that passes, the government grows more powerful, and in the minds of the electorate, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush look like reasonable ways to follow up on all of this.
So if somebody else has a suggestion on how to solve this problem, I’m more than open to hearing it! But if you don’t have a solution, if you’re one of the countless libertarian content producers who is all too happy to let this continue in perpetuity, just for the sake of maintaining their role as prominent complaint departments, can you please stop interfering with those of us who are trying to fix this?
Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. I don’t want to die a slave.
Update 4:50pm – Will has responded here,
Now, I use the term respond kind of loosely. He didn’t actually name a “genuine revolution” that took place without killing government agents. Instead he pointed out, as I suspected, that he doesn’t want a “genuine revolution”.
More than a few “revolutions” have been carried out in that fashion, all of them eventually leading to the consolidation of power in the hands of the most ruthless clique, rather than the rejection of aggressive violence as the organizing principle of society.
Like I said originally, that’s a perfectly fine position to hold. I actually tend to agree, as I have illustrated previously. Let’s just stop pretending that revolution means something other than killing government agents. On Twitter some folks tried to point to a series of negotiations where one group of political masters arranged for some other group of political masters to take over in order to avoid a revolution.
Then Will did what every cop apologist does. Whenever you point out that there’s no such thing as a good cop, especially if you advocate using force to stop them, someone inevitably feels compelled to dig through thousands of news stories of police harassing, assaulting, kidnapping, raping, and murdering, to find some halfway decent looking act carried out by a police officer. It’s quite the chore, but they do manage to pull it off from time to time.
I just don’t see why they go through all that effort, because it’s completely meaningless.
The fact that these people claim the authority to point guns in our faces on the premise that they “protect and serve” us, and actually take a break from victimization once in awhile to do so, means nothing. The fact that they kidnapped and extorted dozens if not hundreds of people before that incident, and will, unless fired, continue to do so after that incident, renders them irredeemable by a single act of decency that any common citizen could just as easily have conducted.
One decent act, does not a kidnapper redeem. The only way a cop can make right with the world is to leave his position and make restitution to those he victimized.
Grigg also referred to the same fallacy I originally addressed about calling Jerad Miller’s cop killings murder. Just because these officers took a momentary break from the aggressions police commit all day every day, doesn’t mean they ceased to be a threat. Everybody knows they are going to get right back in their cars and do what police do, threaten people with death and imprisonment.
The mere presence of a police officer is a threat of “obey me or die”. If Jerad Miller had lit up a marijuana cigarette in the Cici’s pizza, instead of unloading his weapon on the officer, the officer would have taken him into custody. If Jerad struggled, the officers would have beat him into submission, if he armed himself they would gun him down, if he escaped they would call for more armed thugs to join in the pursuit.
Is Mr. Miller obligated to test this theory before he responds to that threat? No. The officer’s uniform is evidence of this. If he had not repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to do so, he would not have a badge, a gun, a radio, or a partner. He’d be in a different line of work.
At least with the Bloods & Crips you can assume they might be drug dealers, or just put on the colors to get along in the neighborhood. Police don’t have that excuse. Their only purpose is to use violence against people who disobey political masters, and if they didn’t do that, they wouldn’t be police. There’s no two ways about it.
And don’t even get me started on proportionality of force when it comes to police.
There’s plenty of things to criticize Jerad Miller for, but killing cops wasn’t one of them.
Subscribe via email and never miss another post!