Cop Block: Badges Do Grant Extra Rights

Well, this is kind of sad. Cop Block posted a really disgusting lie on their website today, claiming to be “committed to the non aggression principle” while simultaneously holding police above it. It would seem, badges really do grant extra rights.

Apparently, their version of the non aggression principle means, when people threaten, rob, assault, kidnap, and murder, the only acceptable response, is to stand by and record it, or of course, do nothing. Well, I’m sorry folks, that’s not what it means. That’s a completely made up idea that is a lot closer to what they teach in public school than anything to do with non aggression.

Cop Block: Badges Do Grant Extra Rights

Cop Block: Badges Do Grant Extra Rights

Cop Block is welcome to set any standard they like, and associate with whom they see fit, but if their only answer to violence is video, then that’s something other than the non-aggression principle. To say that my writings exceed the NAP, is a flat out lie, no different than the lies told by the Free State Project.

Notably missing from the names signed to this slander is Cop Block co-founder, Ademo Freeman. Not that this surprises me, Ademo is one of very few stand up guys I’ve actually met in this world.


Let’s just go ahead and chalk one up for the nihilists. Thanks to crap like this, and the FSP, and numerous other outlets, the NAP is quickly becoming as meaningless as the nihilists say it is. A meaningless term, subject to an infinite number of different interpretations. Building societies around it is completely hopeless, because based on how many negative messages a Facebook page gets, so does the interpretation of the NAP change.

Well fuck that. Fuck Cop Block. Fuck the FSP. And if you redefine terms based on public perception or your own personal preferences, then fuck you too.  

If you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Follow me on Facebook, and Twitter.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

 

  • Travis Kimmel

    I read both of these and you come off as the bad guy not them.

    • Jeremy Reynolds

      then you dont understand the NAP.

      • Edward Patrick Dunne

        Most Anarchists don’t understand the NAP.

  • Manley Caughell

    Definitions of aggression, property, all of it, it’s all subjective, it’s all very easy to warp, and makes the NAP completely meaningless.

    • Dr. Weezil

      No, it’s not, at least according to libertarianism. That’s the point.

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    They, like the thick libertarians, are aware what the NAP is. they just want to add exceptions to it for political expediency.

    • David

      Unfortunately, the NAP doesn’t answer the question of what should be done to people who violate it… by definition it really can’t. Mind you, there are principles we can use to come to common sense rulings (conscience and logic tell us that the death penalty can be justified for murder but not theft, for instance) but it doesn’t give us an exact answer. So I’d hesitate to label someone a non-libertarian based on his viewpoint of what should be done to people who violate the NAP. I’m as frustrated by fake libertarians as anybody, but I don’t think that one’s viewpoint on what is a proportional response to police aggression makes one not a libertarian. For what its worth, I’m more with cop block than Cantwell on that particular topic. I think a police action should be at least somewhere close to murder before it becomes justified to execute them for it. I also don’t claim that Cantwell is not a libertarian because he understandably thinks proportionality cannot apply in the face of the physical power of the State.

      The disagreement isn’t over the NAP. Both parties agree that it is illegitimate to use aggressive force against innocent people or their property, period. The disagreement is over what should be done to those who do. Cantwell thinks that execution is a justified response to the daily actions cops commit, while cop block does not. That doesn’t mean cop block thinks the cops have a right to do what they’re doing.

      For what its worth, I like Cantwell but I can understand cop block’s decision. I’d have a hard time recommending Cantwell to someone who isn’t already a libertarian. There’s nothing that will drive a non-libertarian far away from us than “the good news is that two cops are dead.” I’ve criticized Ron Paul for being too soft at times, and I’m harsher than him most of the time, but there’s no way somebody who basically looks at the blue uniform as an idol is going to be like “Cantwell wants our protectors dead? Sweet, I’ll become a libertarian now!” Mind you, my primary objection to Cantwell is that I think he’s wrong, not that I think his position is unpopular. But I also think he’s wrong in a dangerous sort of way… its the type of thing that enables non-libertarians to come up with strawmen. Larken Rose goes a little farther than I would once in awhile, but I think he’s generally very good at clarifying the difference between self-defense against aggressors. he doesn’t just open with the statement “cops dying is good”, he asks the question “when should you shoot a cop” and basically forces (without violating the NAP, of course) the listener to think about it. My answers aren’t the same as Cantwell’s, and I certainly hope that’s not the standard for being a libertarian.

      • ChanzaLando

        It is shameful when I hear the suicidal talk about not using force, up to death if necessary, to repel theft of private property. What gets completely overlooked in this situation is that when Police violate person and property, there is always the threat of murder if you resist. In this situation the only option to repel this aggression would mean killing your attacker or he will kill you if you resist with any kind of force. Unwillingness to meet this kind of threat with proportionate violence to the threat being made is to forever confer the advantage to the mugger who can simply threaten to kill you, knowing you will never allow yourself to match his threat of force. This is where you are good as dead, as predators can now take everything you own and leave you to starve, knowing you can never stop them.

        While gun grabbers will go apeshit over someone who shoots at a thief, they will turn to the State’s use of guns and lethal threats to apprehend and cage the thief.

        What if the thief is a home invader? What then? Are we to simply wait and find out if he wants the TV or our wife and children?

        It goes completely against the NAP to condemn the use of lethal force to defend liberty and property. Anyone who does so is a strict pacifist (defenseless target) and not a libertarian.

  • Jeremy Reynolds

    does the definition below not describe the actions of the police force? the people have even let them go so far as to allow them to be the punishers as they pepper spray people that are cuffed and/or sitting on the ground. it’s becoming SOP for them to taze first and ask questions later. this is all beside the fact that they are shooting your dogs for no reason at all. however, somehow these people with badges are treated differently than the rest of us plebs even by those who are anarchists and even supposed cop blockers.

    AGGRESSION
    1
    : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
    2
    : the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
    3
    : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

  • Al Wolf

    cheers chris! you are damn well aware you have more people in support of what you write.

  • Edward Patrick Dunne

    Fuck you, Cantwell!!!

    • Phillip Cantu

      You seem angry.

  • Edward Patrick Dunne

    “Wah. . wah, wah. . .waaaaaahhhhh. . . .copblock doesn’t support celebrating cops getting murdered in cold blood by psychos. . .wahhh. . .waaaaahhhh”

    • Guest

      Blood is warm.

    • Averyfoto

      Who cares who did it as long as it got done. It’s the only type of justice that they’d ever face and I’m sure they deserved it. It’s not like we can wait around on pussies like you to do anything about them. Now go vote for another criminal thinking it will help until the cops are toting RPGs down the street. It’s not like we have to kill them all, just as many as it takes to scare the rest straight. Better yet we should attack them, shoot their dogs, kidnap them, steal their money, beat them while they are tied up and throw them in a cage. An eye for an eye…

    • Phillip Cantu

      Cops can’t get murdered, because that would imply they’re innocent.

  • John Galt

    Glad Cop Block showed their true colors. Stopped following them.

  • David

    I read the article, and they don’t say what Cantwell is accusing them of saying.

    Although they leave room for disagreement, the article says that an adherent to the NAP may hold:

    That violence can be used to retrieve stolen money from the cop who stole it and restore it to his victim.

    That violence can be used to extract forcible punishment against a cop who commits murder (I don’t know for sure if this includes execution as far as cop-block is concerned, but advocating for such would not go against anything that is stated in the article.)

    Mind you, cop block does not state that an NAP adherent MUST hold to these things (Nor would I say so, I would say that anyone who believes it is always immoral and should always be illegal to aggress against another person or his property is an NAP adherent ) but they do say that an NAP subscriber CAN hold to such things. This is far from saying “all you can do is take video.”

    Also, and I don’t know that this actually works, but I don’t think the taking video is just to take video. Its to expose the wickedness of abusive officers and make them look bad. Its also in hopes (however small) of forcing the criminal justice system to deal with it.

    It seems that cop block is not taking issue with you because you advocate the deaths of specific cops for specific crimes, but because you advocate the execution of ALL cops, regardless of their actions. That seems to be their issue.

    Now, I can see how this could get murky. I’m not sure if cop block says the writing a speeding ticket is theft, for instance. If they don’t, they are wrong, though this mistake would be insufficient for me to write them off, personally. They may not understand that lawful arrests can be kidnapping (It depends on what the arrest is for, there is a difference between arresting someone for murder and arresting someone for drug use.) I’m really not sure. Regardless, they clearly don’t say that advocating violence of any form is a violation of the NAP. For what its worth, I do agree with what they actually say, namely, that gunning down two officers who are eating lunch, barring evidence that they committed a capital crime or even something close to that which would warrant a capital charge, is a murderous act.

  • Someone got the NAP mixed up with pacifism.

  • Right

    [email protected] getting excommunicated from yet another affiliation. It doesn’t look like he has very many friends left.

    • Roy J Lores

      And that coming from a discredited nihilist pro totalitarianism piece of fecal matter like you.

  • Rezist2Exist

    Props to Ademo.

  • Right

    Cantwell claims he only needs 5% of the population willing to murder cops in order to achieve his anarchist utopia, but he can’t even get .005% consensus among his marginalize fringe nitwit anarchist brethren to agree with him. They all kick him out of their groups. Accept of course for that ingratiating self-promoting idiot Kokesh.

    • David

      What’s your obsession with excommunication? Who says that we have to agree with Cantwell on everything? I’m sure he’s right more often than you are.

      My position is thus. Anytime anybody, even someone who deserves it, dies, it is a tragedy and nothing to celebrate. Its OK to celebrate the EFFECTS of that death (ie. because that mass murderer was executed, he can’t kill anyone else, and we celebrate that) but I still view death as a tragedy. When the death is of someone who may well have deserved it, but who genuinely believes he is a good man, I view it as even more of a tragedy and more lost potential. Anytime anyone is killed who thinks he’s a good man, AND 90+% of the population have contributed to his belief that he’s a good man, its very tragic, and there are more people to blame than just the person who died.

      There is no way you can convince me, in the current political environment, that a random cop who is eating lunch is a valid target. Most cops show up for work every day thinking they are keeping their communities safe. They need to be challenged. They may even need to be shunned. But they don’t need to be killed. Killing them is not only unhelpful, but if he’s sitting there eating lunch, its wrong. Is he a thief? Yes. But less than 1% of the country even realizes that. Which is the bigger problem.

      Its different to kill him when he’s actually threatening you at gunpoint, but to do so when he’s eating lunch is an initiation of force. I do not view it as justified. And the same would go for somebody who is just a thief. Stealing doesn’t warrant capital punishment.

  • AnarchyRules

    A gang of robber says to you ‘do what we say and you won’t get hurt.’ You don’t resist and go on your way with a lighter wallet but physically unhurt. The robbers do this many times a day to lots of people. Most people don’t resist and usually come away physically unharmed. A few resist. They end up beaten, kidnapped, and murdered. The gang does this all day, every day.

    One day a man who has been accosted many times and been beaten and kidnapped by this gang sees some members of the gang taking a break from their morning of robber before they go out to spend the afternoon robbing. There is no mistaking them because they are broadcasting who they are by wearing the gang’s costume. He knows that if he waits until he is being attacked again, that he stands no chance against them. He takes this opportunity to kill them before they hurt anyone else. He kills them in self defense.

    Some people are not happy with his actions. Some because they are members of the gang; they may not participate in the robberies, but they receive a cut of the take. Others because they submit to the gang and realize that this is likely to cause the gang to treat them more harshly resulting in harm even if they don’t resist. Others realize this was self defense. Even some of those know it is self defense speak out against it because they are afraid of the gang.

    • ChanzaLando

      Great points but having private property taken is not being “left unharmed”. A man could starve or freeze to death after enough acts of robbery against him. Taking a mans livelihood is done without consideration that this property is how he feeds himself, his family, and keeps them warm at night.

      Theft is a form of murder, whereby you could take all that a man owns and leave him for dead. Furthermore when police steal there is always the threat of murder if you resist. A challenge that could potentially warrant a kill or be killed kind of response.

      Thieves do not exercise restraint or compassion for the victim. They will increasingly take all that he has if they know that all they have to do is threaten lethal force, and it will never be responded to in kind.

  • Bob

    Chris, you did nothing to rebut what Copblock said. All you did was say “they’re wrong”. This post was a waste of my time.