Eric Garner

Eric Garner's Murder Reveals the Ugly Core of Government and Law Enforcement

|

Eric Garner
Video screen capture

Maybe you thought Michael Brown was a less than sympathetic victim because he apparently tussled with a cop before that cop unloaded his gun into him. Not that it matters, since the deck was stacked against an indictment of Officer Darren Wilson. As Andrew Napolitano notes, "The grand jury…was subjected to the type of evidence that only trial juries hear, including a soliloquy from the cop himself and all the exculpatory evidence the prosecutor could find." The powers that be didn't take any chances in that case—they didn't want one of their enforcers seriously inconvenienced.

And they really didn't want one of their strong-arm men put out over the murder of Eric Garner. The grand jury in that case declined to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo in what seemed a clear-cut case of over-the-top brutality. Even the Medical Examiner ruled Garner's death a "homicide."

Here we have Garner, a guy allegedly selling loosies—single cigarettes—which are a perfectly legal product. Why is he supposedly selling loosies? Because New York officials inflict on their long-suffering subjects the highest cigarette tax in the country at at $4.35 per pack, plus another $1.50 levied in the city itself. It's not a popular tax, with smuggled smokes making up 60.9 percent of the market. So the powers that be unleash the cops to enhance revenue by tracking down shipments of smuggled cigarettes and, on occasion, putting the occasional small-time street vendor in an illegal chokehold.

Which is to say, Eric Garner was murdered for the purposes of revenue enhancement.

And also, let's be clear, because when you unleash armies of thugs on the population to enforce every petty law, they're soon going to acquire an attitude. Eventually, telling a cop, "Please just leave me alone," as Garner told the cops rousting him, becomes an unacceptable act of defiance. It's interpreted as an invitation to swarm a man suspected of selling handfuls of untaxed cigarettes and wrestle him to the ground.

You want a society taxed and regulated toward your vision of perfection? It's going to need enforcers. Those enforcers are going to interact on a daily basis wth people who don't share that vision of perfection, and who resent the constant enforcement attempts. They'll push back to greater or lesser extents. And the enforcers will twist arms in return to frighten people into obedience. People will be abused and some will die.

Some of the people defying the law will carve out a niche for themselves. My great-grandfather ignored Prohibition in his speakeasy. He kept cops who didn't take the law too seriously happy with drinks and payoffs. And he kept everybody happy by defying yet another attempt by control freak officials and their busybody constituents to perfect the world through force.

I didn't turn as big a profit as my great-grandfather when I sold grass. But I knew enough to keep a police dispatcher happy. He returned the favor by tipping me off when I popped onto law enforcement radar.

Corruption, then, becomes a lubricant to the system. Paying cops off to "please just leave me alone," is a better alternative to watching armies of enforcers kill people in the streets over stupid laws.

Those enforcers aren't an equal problem for everybody. They spare the people who pay them to look the other way. They give a pass to friends and relations. But they often take a dislike to individuals or whole groups that rub them the wrong way or cause them extra grief. Poor minorities, in particular, are aways on the short end of the stick when it comes to dealing with cops. When they break petty laws, they don't often turn enough profit to grease police palms enough to be left alone, they don't have the political power to push back, and at least some of the enforcers have a hard-on for them anyway.

Government, at its core, is force. The more it does to shape the world around it, the more it needs enforcers to make sure officials' wills are done. "The law is the law," says New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, but it's creatures like him who make so much damned law. And then they send the likes of Officer Daniel Pantaleo to make sure we comply. Or else they might kill us.

Reason's annual Webathon is underway! Your (tax-deductible!) gift will help Reason magazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV bring the case for "Free Minds and Free Markets" to bigger and bigger audiences. For giving levels and associated swag, go here now.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

354 responses to “Eric Garner's Murder Reveals the Ugly Core of Government and Law Enforcement

  1. You have also lay the blame squarely on the progressives refusal to believe in the Laffer curve. Why was their market for loosies? Why did progressives feel the need to regulate selling loosies? Because progressive NYC is so far to the right on cigarette taxes. The Laffer curve explains this and predicts this, but progressive believe the Laffer curve is “voodoo” economics.

    1. Keep hammering “far to the right” and see if you can’t start getting progressives to argue about how we need to move to the left.

      1. More proof that cigarettes kill.

        /www.thetruth.com

    2. Great article. I never sold shit but I sure as hell feared the cops for having it.

  2. i reckon if the urbanites ever arm and defend themselves, then this will stop.

    1. That’s why the progs need gun control. Knives are also pretty much illegal in NYC.

  3. Not that it matters, since the deck was stached against an indictment of Officer Darren Wilson.

    If only Wilson had had a copstache.

    1. lol. I had to read that sentence 2-3 times before I figured out what JD meant to say…and that he didn’t spell ‘stashed’ wrong

      1. And now he fixed it, making me look like A FOOL.

        1. That sucks when they correct it without noting the correction.

        2. H&R demands many sacrifices, Fist. Here’s my no-hat-tip hanky, I think there’s a dry corner somewhere. 😛

        3. making me look like A FOOL

          Yeah, that’s what makes you look a fool.

  4. Whenever you tell Progressives and Conservatives this, they get this stupid ass look on their faces Government at it’s core is force and whenever you try to mold society to your standards through laws and prohibitions, the use of government force is intitiated..

    1. Some conservatives get that but no Prog ever gets it. What conservatives don’t get and in some ways this makes them dumber than progs is that once you embrace the idea that the proper role of government is to limit or eliminate vice, they have lost the argument with Progs. Conservatives think that drugs or gambling or porn is different and special, that those things somehow make people irrational and therefore it is okay for the government to step in and stop them even if the only “victim” of the vice is the person who indulges in it. What they don’t get is that there isn’t anything special about those things. Conservatives just don’t like them. Well, good for them. Progs don’t like cigarettes and large sodas and cars and a million other things they consider to be vices just as much as conservatives consider drugs and gambling to be vices. And who is to say they are wrong? Just like the world would be better if there were no drug addicts or degenerate gamblers, the world would probably be better if everyone exercised and ate healthy too. Conservatives refuse to understand that it is the person who makes the activity a vice not anything special about some activities.

      1. What conservatives don’t get and in some ways this makes them dumber than progs is that once you embrace the idea that the proper role of government is to limit or eliminate vice, they have lost the argument with Progs.

        +1 Ministry of Virtue

      2. And who is to say they are wrong?

        The imaginary victims?

        1. The point is that virtually anything can be a vice if you choose to make it one. If I spend my time locked in my attic playing videogames that can be just as self destructive as going up there shooting heroin. Conservatives don’t get that. They think there really is something special about drugs or gambling. So they don’t understand once they say it is the proper role of government to save people from drugs and gambling they have lost the argument when progs want to use government to control other behaviors Progs see as self destructive, because since virtually any behavior can be self destructive if the person makes it so, the progs have a point.

          1. Oh, trust me – they think video games are of the devil, too.

            1. Ok, then, how about spending all of one’s time locked in the attic watching Fox News? Or, for that matter, The 700 Club?

              1. Ask shreek. He’ll say those are vices.

          2. Everything you’ve said about the nature of vices and conservative beliefs in them is codswallop

            //Conservatives think that drugs or gambling or porn is different and special, that those things somehow make people irrational

            But they are special. Years of psychological and neurological research show that. The nature of addiction is that it subverts a person’s free will and the thorough thinking about choices they otherwise would have made.

            The problem with pro-vice-banning people is that they don’t understand that such laws have more net negative effects than positive ones. One of which is making the vice even more deleterious, in part by making it prohibitively expensive.

            Not that “conservatives” are for uniformly for vice-banning laws anymore. I keep hearing about these millions of paleo-conservatives who are against drugs and against women’s and civil rights, etc. etc. But I’ve never seen these people. The left just can’t back up their arguments, so they argue against “conservatives” from 60+ years ago.

            Remember, Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll.

            1. Sixty years ago was 1954, when the very moderate, and pro-civil rights, Ike was the Republican president. The Democrats were still pandering to the Klan back then.

              They are really arguing with the Klan Democrats of the era, a species which is extinct.

            2. oh, and also that these pro-vice-ban guys think that marijuana is an addictive vice or something. That’s pretty fucking stupid.

              But again, these are imaginary “conservatives”, not modern, under-40 years old conservatives.

            3. That is billious horseshit Edwin. They are not special. There are millions of people in this country who occasionally gamble but don’t become addicts. Tens of millions of people have tried the hardest most addictive forms of drugs and never became addicted or in many cases ever tried them more than once. Others have been occasional users for years and never became addicted or self destructive.

              If these things were “special” that wouldn’t be the case. There wouldn’t be people who snorted a few lines of coke in college and never again or go to Vegas once a year and never gamble otherwise. It is complete fucking horseshit to pretend otherwise.

              The problem is some people are self destructive. Drugs and gambling are just a means for those people. If they didn’t exist, there would find some other way to be self destructive. Indeed, many people do. Lots of people are compulsive eaters or workaholics or engage in all kinds of activities to such an extreme that it harms them.

              1. I’ll just chime in and say that psychological research does not indicate that gambling, porn, masturbation, etc. are “special” in requiring force to be used against actors, nor are they special in behavioral terms.

                We’re naturally reinforced for performing some tasks and naturally punished for others. Sticking your hand on a red-hot eye leads to less stove-hand interaction, whereas having an orgasm once leads to the pursuit of more orgasms. Anything that doesn’t entail physical withdrawal symptoms should not be considered addictive, though psych has done an excellent job in confusing the verge between addiction and compulsion (already badly named) in the past few decades.

                Conscious behavior, even “compulsive” behavior, is always considered to be voluntary to the extent that any behavior is voluntary. The operative word there is conscious. Nothing is overriding free will to the extent that it exists or seems to exist.

                But nannies gonna nanny.

                1. //gambling, porn, masturbation,

                  Good thing we weren’t arguing that. Though of course you reactionaries want to add that in there and lump it in with heroin, which is a totally different animal.

                  Those things are addictive to a much smaller segment of the population. To those people, it is just as addictive. But it’s a smaller set of people, and the damages, depending on what wwe’re talking about, are far less.

              2. //Tens of millions of people have tried the hardest most addictive forms of drugs and never became addicted or in many cases ever tried them more than once.

                So you’re just a moron.
                Cocaine is not heroin.
                There are no armies of people who have tried heroin once or twice and then quite. Maybe once, but the minute you just barely start to make a habit out of it, you’re addicted.

                If you believe otherwise, you’re a fucking idiot.

                And there are other drugs that AREN’T addictive, but have no real subcultures following them but can be so massively dangerous that a ban is warranted and not so harmful. Like PCP (which not often but sometimes can drive someone nuts and make them dangerous). PCP is so rarely used that it doesn’t even really factor into the drug war, and the ban probably does more good than harm, for now anyway.

                //Drugs and gambling are just a means for those people…

                No. This is not correct. You are factually wrong. Some people take up a drug to cope, but there are plenty of people who just get addicted.

                Saying false things and being an idiot is not going to advance your cause. The drug war as it is waged now is harmful, but that doesn’t mean that drugs are as harmless as marshamllows. You do a disservice to our side by making us look like such idiots.

                1. So you’re just a moron.
                  Cocaine is not heroin.
                  There are no armies of people who have tried heroin once or twice and then quite. Maybe once, but the minute you just barely start to make a habit out of it, you’re addicted.

                  Maybe you missed the memo but heroin and opiate are the same thing. When you take an opiate based pain pill, you are taking heroin. Yes, it is a better made form than the Mexican shoe scrapings they sell on the street and you know what you are getting and are not going to OD on it because the retard you bought it from didn’t cut it right, but it is the same shit in both cases. You can get just as physically and psychologically addicted to opiate pain pills as you can to heroin. Indeed, when the DEA went after pain pills, many of the addicts switched to heroin when they couldn’t get pain med anymore.

                  No. This is not correct. You are factually wrong. Some people take up a drug to cope, but there are plenty of people who just get addicted.

                  That is bullshit. The don’t get “addicted”. They are fucking degenerate irresponsible people who use the “addiction” as an excuse to be what they are. To believe otherwise is to believe drugs can rob us of our free will and that is just not true.

                  Edwin, you are doing a disservice to our side by engaging in magical thinking here.

                  1. //When you take an opiate based pain pill, you are taking heroin.

                    No, they are different. And the form of administration is different which is also important.

                    And why is this even an issue? Who said that prescription opiates aren’t an issue? They are effective painkillers, but it’s a mixed bag. Just because I think there should be room for them legally, doesn’t mean … well… what the hell are you arguing? That because some opiates should be legal to some extent as drugs prescribed by doctors that therefore heroin should be completely legal in every way? I already said I don’t believe in the drug war. But all these things have their issues that need to be dealt with in some way b the law. An illicit drug free for all with legal advertising would be a bad idea just as not holding people with medical licenses accountable if they become a pill mill would also be a bad idea. And again outright bans n either are also a bad idea

                    //That is bullshit. The don’t get “addicted”. They are fucking degenerate irresponsible people who use the “addiction” as an excuse to be what they are.

                    Do you have any data to back this up? Because all of science disagrees with you. You’re making things up, solely from the source of being a reactionary.

                    YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG

                    1. (cont.)

                      //Edwin, you are doing a disservice to our side by engaging in magical thinking here.

                      No, you’re making us look like idiots to any thinking person. YOU are engaging in magical thinking.

                      If you aren’t, why don’t you lose some weight real quickly? If you don’t, you effectively concede my point.

                    2. And why is this even an issue? Who said that prescription opiates aren’t an issue?

                      Because the fact that millions of people take them every year without becoming addicts shows that your claim that heroin is special is bullshit. It is not special. You only get addicted to it if you are self destructive and irresponsible and choose to do so. Millions of people take their pain meds until they run out and never take them again and have no desire to do so. If heroin were this magic substance that robbed us of our free will and corrupted good people into becoming bad, those people wouldn’t be able to do that. They would become addicts.

                2. I bet there are “armies” of people who have tried heroin and quit–actually. Just because you were an addict and did a lot of fucked up things doesn’t mean you get to project it on to everyone else, those are your fuck-ups, quit being a chicken-shit and take responsibility for them. That might actually help you, one of the most fucked-up things about addicts is how they blame everything in the world for their bullshit–except for themselves. Calling it a “disease’ is just weakness, you have a fucking choice that is proven over and over again because people do get over their drug abuse—by taking responsibility for it.

            4. The problem with pro-vice-banning people is that they don’t understand that such laws have more net negative effects than positive ones.

              And if they don’t, it is okay? That is the kind of utilitarian thinking that Progs shove up conservatives’ asses when it comes to banning the things they like. A whole lot of people think the world would be a better and safer place if only cops have guns, if they can prove it would be so, should they be able to do that? Why not if it is now the government’s job to save the drug user from himself?

              And most conservatives support the drug war. At most they are okay with legalizing pot. But few of them support legalizing hard drugs and many object to legalized gambling because they like you, believe in the magical power of such activities.

              1. //And if they don’t, it is okay?

                But they don’t, so it’s not OK.
                Clearly laws against pot are absurd. And clearly simplistic bans are harmful, as they require us to expend resources catching and imprisoning addicts, and also pressure addicts into crime.

                That doesn’t mean the solution won’t involve other, more smartly designed laws. Bans against certain kinds of advertising for certain drugs are a no brainer. Social service routes into rehab help. Etc.

                1. Bans against certain kinds of advertising for certain drugs are a no brainer.

                  Okay. Then you should be fine when Progs ban advertising for sugary cereals and anything else they view as harmful. And like every other clueless conservative, you will scream “hey that’s different” never understanding that no it isn’t different. You think sugary cereals are not as bad as the evil drugs. Well, progs disagree and since you have conceded that saving people from their own poor choices is a legitimate role of government, you are just negotiating the terms of surrender to the Prog ideal.

                  1. //Then you should be fine when Progs ban advertising for sugary cereals and anything else they view as harmful

                    No, because that is different.

                    Again, you’re trying to compare different things. Food is not the same thing as heroin. It is far far far less addictive to the vast majority of people.

                    You’re arguments are fucking stupid , brah.

                    //Well, progs disagree and since you have conceded that saving people from their own poor choices is a legitimate role of government, you are just negotiating the terms of surrender to the Prog ideal.

                    No, you’re just trying to pigeonhole it that way. You’re trying to make it about extremely broad principles, when in fact it doesn’t have to be.
                    We can talk about different subjects and how they should have different policies and still be libertarian. Realizing that there are biological realities out there because we are flesh and blood animals does not make us not libertarian. Issues with disease are a good example- it’s a biological issue. Though I’m sure you’d fuck that issue up as well.

                    1. No, because that is different.

                      Why? Because you say so? You think it is different but so what? A lot of people disagree. Once you concede to have the argument you are just negotiating how much you are going to lose it by.

                    2. //Why? Because you say so?

                      I LITERALLY in the same comment EXPLAINED WHY.
                      –“Food is not the same thing as heroin. It is far far far less addictive to the vast majority of people.”

                      Dude, you’ve lost. You keep just arguing in circles. I never said it’s just because “I said so”. There are objective realities out there. For this one argument, you’re trying to act like a subjectivist. But I know you’re not.

                      //Once you concede to have the argument

                      The only thing I’ve “conceded” is that biological drives and addiction exist. You have been denying that, poorly. I cited numerous example of common knowledge that most people know that show that these things exist.

                      // how much you are going to lose it by.

                      I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here.

                      I made clear that I think the libertarian solution to the drug war is the best. I even provided working examples (Europe). I just don’t think it should be a libertarian free-for-all. I’m not an anarchist extremist. That I think there should be a tiny law here or there does NOT mean I have conceded to the entire modern drug war. Again EUROPE. FUCKING EUROPE!!! Are you going to tell me Europe’s policies aren’t more libertarian than America’s?

                      You’re arguing the same thing over and over again, and should stop.

                    3. There are objective realities out there.

                      None of those realities involve the objective truth of the just existence of the drug war.

                      Again EUROPE. FUCKING EUROPE!!!

                      Most of that continent is waging their own drug war. Those polities with reduced enforcement are still doing so illegitimately because the policy itself is arbitrary. The anti-drug policies are rooted in illreasoned preference, not objective truth.

                    4. //None of those realities involve the objective truth of the just existence of the drug war.

                      What?

                      I keep arguing against the drug war.

                      //Most of that continent is waging their own drug war.

                      I’m clearly talking about the countries that specifically have changed their drug policies, like Holland and Portugal

                      //The anti-drug policies are rooted in illreasoned preference, not objective truth.

                      Probably for a lot of red-state conservatives. Again, I doubt how many of those there are that actually fit the ’50’s -conservative schema.

                      But to any extent they realize that drugs are addictive (not pot, though), because biological drives extent, and that the stronger they are the more they erode free will, then they aren’t wrong and that belief isn’t irrational.

                      The irrationality comes from either failing to consider the details (the former paragraph above, where I mentioned ’50’s style), or ignoring the huge negative consequences of a simplistic ban and agressive enforcement. But NOT admitting that basic truth about drugs (again, addiction, biological drives).

            5. Took me a nano-second to think of Newt Gingrich as a conservative example. I think a person could spend weeks thinking of conservatives who are against drugs, are racists, hate women, and hate civil right. It sounds like you are a conservative and are blinded by your ideology.

          3. //If I spend my time locked in my attic playing videogames that can be just as self destructive as going up there shooting heroin

            You are a fucking retard if you believe that.

            Most people who start up on heroin end up horribly phsyically addicted to it. Most people play video games at some point but don’t get that addicted.

            1. You are fucking retarded Edwin. People take heroin every day, they are called opiate based pain pills. And you only get physically addicted if you are a fucking degenerate who keeps taking them long enough. I have been proscribed pain pills plenty of times. I never got addicted to them. If they made them legal tomorrow, I wouldn’t take them then either.

              Am I just immune to their magic power Edwin? Or am I just not a self destructive person?

              And I have a father in law who is dying of Type II Diabetes because he refused to moderate his diet. His health is wrecked more than any junkies health. Does food have magic powers over our will? Or maybe some people just lack self control? How about that idea.

              1. I don’t recognize the Edwin handle, but I’m getting a certain familiar contrarian vibe from his posts.

                1. //but I’m getting a certain familiar contrarian vibe from his posts.

                  No, you guys are just being reactionary against the drug war. I’ve said repeatedly that the drug war is bad.

                  The more important original point is that conservatives aren’t as dumb as progressives, because this bugaboo, to the extent it even is a bugaboo of theirs, is at least substantive. It isn’t for pot, but it is for harder drugs.

                  Progressives actually want to save you from yourself, even when you aren’t harming yourself. Which in reality means they want you to live like they want; they want to force their aesthetics on you.
                  Progressives are shrill, emotionalist, reactionary, authoritarian monsters.

                  Modern conservatives, if there are any like we’re describing (mostly they aren’t, they’re an invention of the left), are at worst stupid and misguided and stubborn. Some slight convincing from a fellow conservative who is clearly concerned about real issues but knows better on certain subjects is all it would take to show them some light.

                  1. Progressives actually want to save you from yourself, even when you aren’t harming yourself.

                    Don’t you understand Edwin that this statement is really just you saying “Progressives want to save you from things I don’t think are harmful”? Who says you or me or anyone has a monopoly on the definition of “harmful”? You think drugs are harmful. Progressives think owning a gun or eating too much sugar is harmful. Who are you to say they are wrong?

                    1. //Who says you or me or anyone has a monopoly on the definition of “harmful”?

                      There are such things as objective truths.

                      Anybody who is not an idiot thoroughly understands that the “harms” that food and guns can cause to the individual are far overshadowed by those of the likes of heroin.

                      To the extent progressives want to deny that, they are shrill and lying to themselves and everyone else.

                      All you’re really saying to me is that some people suspend their reason to back up their beliefs (Progressives), when I already knew that.

                    2. There are such things as objective truths.

                      Not of subjective words like “harmful”. What is harmful to you could be salvation to someone else.

                      Anybody who is not an idiot thoroughly understands that the “harms” that food and guns can cause to the individual are far overshadowed by those of the likes of heroin.

                      Even is heroin is a “worse” harm, whatever that means, that doesn’t mean the Progs are not right in thinking those other harms are bad enough to justify government regulation. Even if Heroin is the worst evil in the universe, if it is a proper role for government to save me from the decision to use it, it is justifiably the proper role of government to save me from the decision to engage in other harmful things even if they are “less harmful”

                    3. Again Edwin, you are just negotiating the terms of your surrender to the progs. You have conceded the argument that it is the government’s job to manage the individual. You are just arguing about how far the line should go. That is it. And you are not going to win that debate, because you can’t. You are stuck arguing that the government should allow bad some bad things to happen even though you admit it is the government’s job to stop bad things. You can’t win that debate. You have a bug up your ass about heroin. Someone else will have a bug up their ass about driving fast or eating too much or drinking too much and portray you as uncaring and unwilling to have the government do its duty to its citizens.

                      This is why conservatives always lose policy debates to Progs. It is because people like you concede the argument before it begins.

              2. //People take heroin every day, they are called opiate based pain pills. And you only get physically addicted if you are a fucking degenerate who keeps taking them long enough

                Plenty of people get addicted to these and then move onto heroin and shit when their prescription is done.

                /Am I just immune to their magic power Edwin?

                Yes.
                Here’s a crazy thought, maybe different people are different. It’s well understood in genetics and neurology that some people lack the predeliction towards addiction/

                Look, you’re just wrong. These things are understood by science. The details aren’t there, but they are broadly understood.

                //Does food have magic powers over our will?

                To a much lesser extent than certain hard drugs. Yes. If they didn’t, losing weight wouldn’t be so hard for so many millions of people. You’re basically proving my point

                //Or maybe some people just lack self control?

                So now you’re conceding my point?

                Look, you’re proving yourself to be an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The drug war is bad, but you’re just being reactionary about it.

                You’re like religious conservatives a la the Bible on the subject of gays. The Bible clearly bans gay relations. Religious types take that and start making up their own shit about homosexuality predelictions not existing. It doesn’t say that in the bible. If you want to believe in the Bible, just believe it. Don’t add in your own stupid shit.

                1. Here’s a crazy thought, maybe different people are different. It’s well understood in genetics and neurology that some people lack the predeliction towards addiction/

                  Maybe they are. But if they are, then we don’t have free will and some people can’t control themselves. If you believe that, then you better become a Prog Edwin, because if people don’t have free will or the ability to do what is best for themselves, then there is no way they should have freedom.

                  1. //Maybe they are. But if they are, then we don’t have free will and some people can’t control themselves

                    With certain, things, yeah. But you can control your exposure to such things. I’ve never tried cigarettes though I have been widely exposed to them in my peer group. Why? Because I know myself and my predelictions (some of that comes with age), and I know I’ll become very addicted to them.

                    There’s other stuff like that I’ve had to take up, too.

                    1. With certain, things, yeah.

                      Again, those magical things. Bullshit. People always have the ability to stop. They just choose not to. Indeed, many of them eventually choose to stop on their own. If heroin is so magical, why do so many people choose to stop using it even after years of addiction. Keith Richards was a horrible junkie. But when he was faced with the choice of quitting or going to jail, he stopped in 1978 and never used heroin again. How did he do that if the drug robbed him of his free will? It didn’t rob hm of anything. He used heroin because he wanted to and when he no longer wanted to, he stopped. It is just that simple.

                    2. // People always have the ability to stop.

                      Actually, considering that withdrawal from certain drugs can make the user violently ill and even kill them, no they don’t have that ability. Heroin withdrawal for a regular use is fucking hardcore. Barbituate ( I think) withdrawal, and alcohol withdrawal can fucking kill you.

                      There’s no way you didn’t know about this. Like I said you are deliberately suspending your reason and knowledge. Long time heroin users use just to feel NORMAL. These are things you have heard about.

                      I have made it clear to anyone reading that you are deliberately ignoring facts.

                      //If heroin is so magical, why do so many people choose to stop using it even after years of addiction

                      They do, but it takes time, and other drugs. Some people can’t even stop the methodone once they’ve quit, and need to take it for life or they get all fucked up and really ill.

                      //he stopped in 1978 and never used heroin again.

                      I doubt the story. Maybe he wasn’t such a long time or heavy user; didn’t up his dose over time.

                    3. They do, but it takes time, and other drugs. Some people can’t even stop the methodone once they’ve quit, and need to take it for life or they get all fucked up and really ill.

                      I can’t seem to stop arguing with morons on Hit and Run instead of doing productive things, should hit and run be regulated?

                      The point is that people choose to use and some choose to stop. The operative point is “choose”. It is not the government’s role to stop people from making decisions the government views as “harmful”. If it is, then the government needs to be regulating all harmful choices not just the ones you think are special.

                    4. //The point is that people choose to use and some choose to stop.

                      But clearly, and I’ve clearly shown this here, it’s not a “choice” to the extent that you claim it is.

                      // It is not the government’s role to stop people from making decisions the government views as “harmful”

                      No one said it was. I never argued that. That you keep ignoring my arguments is not my fault.

                      //If it is, then the government needs to be regulating all harmful choices not just the ones you think are special.

                      I never said it’s the ones I think are special.
                      And even if anyone said that is the argument, which I did not, then that would not be a necessary conclusion. Again there are extents of things. Extents of how many people harmed and extent of harm.

                      Look, you lost. You said a stupid thing, and you’ve been proven wrong with common knowledge/common sense.
                      Addiction and biological drives do indeed exist, and drugs are a separate thing from other things because of it.

                  2. appx .1% is the heroin use rate according to the national drug institute

                2. //Does food have magic powers over our will?

                  To a much lesser extent than certain hard drugs. Yes. If they didn’t, losing weight wouldn’t be so hard for so many millions of people. You’re basically proving my point

                  Yes, some people make bad choices. That is my entire point Edwin. You just conceded the argument. It is the person’s inability to moderate that is the problem, not the activity.

                  If food is no different than drugs and it is okay for the government to ban drugs, then the Progs are right when they say the government should control everyone’s diet.

                  You either believe people are responsible for their actions and it is not the government’s role to save them or you don’t. There is no in between “but only on things I don’t like” position.

                  1. //Yes, some people make bad choices. That is my entire point Edwin.

                    No, you are outright denying the existence of addiction and basic biological drives.

                    //. It is the person’s inability to moderate that is the problem, not the activity.

                    But the level of exposure to the activity can change, from a number of factors such as personal choice, what your friends and family do, etc. One of those factors is the effects of law.

                    //If food is no different than drugs

                    No thinking person said that. That’s what YOU’RE trying to say. There is such a thing as scale.
                    You extremist libertarians are so stuck on trying to put things in different qualitative boxes you forget that is the quantitative aspect of things/arguments.

                    /You either believe people are responsible for their actions and it is not the government’s role to save them or you don’t.

                    No, the issue isn’t one of “responsibility” but net effect, and there is plenty of middle ground in how laws can be written. There are 26 letters in the alphabet. One a single page of law, with let’s say 2,000 characters, that’s a possibity of 26^2000 policies that could be written on a single page of law. But you’re pretending it’s either the current drug war or libertopia.

                    If you’d calm the fuck down, you’d remember I said that the drug war as it is is a bad idea. I only said that there can be SOME laws dealing with drugs in SOME ways. Obviously, in ways that are far milder than the current drug war.

                    1. //There is no in between “but only on things I don’t like” position.

                      Good thing no one said that, then. But there is an in between where you look at actual separate things actually separately and consider them differently. You know, like a thinking person.

                      Again, you consider where things are actually and make policy accordingly.

                      Again, YOU’RE the one trying to pigeonhole the issue into broad libertarian principles, and you won’t listen that the only thing I’ve suggested is laws, but much much les than the current drug war.
                      And, the main issue, you are ignoring basic biological reality.

                    2. No, the issue isn’t one of “responsibility” but net effect,

                      We know for a fact that the net effect of war rationing in the UK was a healthier population. Look it up if you don’t believe me. By your logic the UK government would have been justified in continuing that rationing. Think of all of the people who would have been saved from the horrible effects of obesity had they done that?

                      That is where your kind of thinking goes Edwin. You live in this fantasy land where we can just do a little bit on the things you really worry about. And that is just well a fantasy. It doesn’t work like that. Once you embrace that as a role of government, there is no stopping it.

                    3. //By your logic the UK government would have been justified in continuing that rationing

                      Nope, because you’re trying to pigeonhole your “logic” into my logic. Again, YOU’RE the one who’s trying make this about overly broad principles.

                      Clearly rationing food would be extremely sub-optimal because people enjoy food (usually without getting addicted). Furthermore, WW2 was a time of much earlier mortality, with no antibiotics. New research is showing that more fat on the body leads to more resilience later in life. The BMI Nazis only ever focus on the rates of a few specific morbidities (heart attack rates, and not even including the survival rate).

                      //That is where your kind of thinking goes Edwin.

                      Nope. It’s where YOUR thinking goes.

                      HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT? THIS IS ALL YOUR EXTREMIST, BROAD PRINCIPLE LOGIC, NOT MINE. I HAVE NEVER PROPOSED ANY “LOGIC” LIKE YOURS.
                      ARE YOU RETARDED?

                      //we can just do a little bit on the things you really worry about

                      Well, we CAN, and Europe already has. And it’s not on things I worry about, it’s on things that objectively have very strong and widespread negative affects.
                      Many European countries ended complete anti-drug policing. They claim they only aren’t going after the end user, but how much they’re stopping the large distributers I don’t know. They obviously have also retained bans on advertising of hard drugs to some extent. They also have instituted clean needl programs and tracks into rehab.

                    4. (cont.)

                      I’m not sure how crazy I am about too many of my tax dollars paying for other people’s rehab, but clearly their is a more libertarian policy that works better than America’s, WITHOUT BEING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FALSE DICHOTOMY YOU HAVE PROPOSED.

                      AGAIN, THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED. YOUARE BLATANTLY IGNORING FACTS.

                    5. Clearly rationing food would be extremely sub-optimal because people enjoy food (usually without getting addicted).

                      A lot of people enjoy drugs. All of your posts on this boil down to you repeating over and over again “I hate drugs and want them banned or heavily regulated”. Good for you. Everyone has their special pony. You really can’t explain why your pony is special and the Progs’ ponies aren’t. You just assume they are and move on. Once you admit it is the government’s role to save people from themselves, you are left arguing about the degree of harm justifies intervention. Since that is a completely subjective decision, you and people like you are doomed to lose any debate with a Prog.

                    6. because people enjoy food (usually without getting addicted).

                      At night, Edwin checks under his bed only to discover thousands of potential addictions lurking there. Love addiction, food addiction, opiate addictions, internet addictions . . . why, it’s like life itself is addictive.

                      Sleep with the lights on, Ed.

                    7. Why are you mocking what I’m saying?

                      Alls I EVER said is that there are indeed biological drives and addictions, and that drugs are a separate thing from other things because of this/these issues. A separate thing to be considered separately.

                      You know, like thinking people do? Consider different things differently?

                      I’ve clearly beaten John at this debate, where he is trying to argue a stupid point that is directly contrary to facts (notice, he didn’t even address the facts I mentioned that certain withdrawals can make one violently ill and even kill, and that heroin users often use just to stay feeling normal), and arguing against some imaginary progressive boogie man that he thinks is me but is mostly in his head.

                      Why humor him?

                    8. I’ve clearly beaten John at this debate

                      Well, you’ve certainly beaten anyone at repeatedly sputtering arguments without a point or any discernable resolution. Too bad we’re not at the Pointlessly Adversarial Olympics, or you’d have 20 lbs worth of gold medals around your neck.

                    9. Who’s humoring anyone? John’s a lawyer. This is what he does, and I give him plenty of grief about the myriad things he’s not aware of.

                      But you’re pretending that “addiction” is something that happens when you eat candy bars or go to the Indian casino and that requires wise legacies of Ivy League schools to dictate to those of us who weren’t legacies how much of our incomes we must give them for our own good.

                      Addiction describes a physical withdrawal phenomenon, nothing else. You cannot, by definition, be addicted to gambling.

                    10. //All of your posts on this boil down to you repeating over and over again “I hate drugs and want them banned or heavily regulated”

                      They literally do not do that at all. I have clearly said over and over again that I’m simply considering drugs as a separate thing, and viewing them for what they are/do. That you want to make false comparisons is not on me, and is frankly you strawmanning me.

                      //. Everyone has their special pony.

                      Not really. Just because I admit that addiction and biological drives exist doesn’t mean I view drug policy any differently than any other libertarian. Mainly that we need to massively scale back the drug way. And that Europe has proven to be a much better alternative.

                      // You really can’t explain why your pony is special and the Progs’ ponies aren’t.

                      I repeatedly did. Again, there are objective realities out there. Frankly, you denying that there are objective realities plays into the proggies’ hands.
                      The progs admittedly can’t show any actual harm from catcalling, and their arguments about food are on a much larger, lower-key scale of harm, and frankly ignore possible benefits of being slightly fat.

                      // Once you admit it is the government’s role to save people from themselves,

                      Nobody said that was the government’s main role, or even the concern in this case. Again, you keep trying to pigeonhole my ideas.

                      //you are left arguing about the degree of harm justifies intervention

                    11. (cont.)

                      There aren’t degrees of things? So if I say “the government should maintain a military.”, it means I’ve conceded to an endless military-industrial complex and enormous budget?

                      And anyway, haven’t I repeatedly said that the govenrments role in preventing drugs should be much smaller?

                      //Since that is a completely subjective decision

                      No, it isn’t. Like I said there are objective realities. Again, you’re trying to randomly jump into being a subjectivist, which frankly won’t work with the rest of your libertarian philosophy.

                      Look, over and over again I have said that the drug war is out of whack. I have commented on Reason for years, always from libertarian perspective. You are talking to a small-l but very strong libertarian.

                      What I don’t like is you being a dumbass and saying dubass things and making us look like a dumbass. Outright ignoring realities, and playing the aspberger douche nerd doctrinaire libertarian extremist card. That’s why very few causes that are even a little libertarian ever win, and when they do it isn’t from a libertarian bent within the voters’

                      Look, I’ve clearly beaten you in this debate. Anyone reading can see your strawminng, false equivocation, nd outright denial of facts. You’re clearly just being a reactionary, even though I’ve repeatedly said I am not for the drug war and am a libertarian.

                    12. Look, I’ve clearly beaten you in this debate.

                      It’s not at all clear that you could debate your way out of a kindergarten. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated how little you understand about each topic you bring up. You don’t even know the definitions of the basic concepts you’re bloviating about.

                    13. //It’s not at all clear that you could debate your way out of a kindergarten. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated how little you understand about each topic you bring up. You don’t even know the definitions of the basic concepts you’re bloviating about.

                      He keeps trying to pigeonhole everything I say into his broad-principle schema, when I never took it up. My conception of how the issues should be viewed is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from his.

                      He has outright DENIED that biological drives exist and that addiction exists. I have PROVEN him wrong (again, some withdrawals can KILL you, heroin users eventually use only to feel normal).

                      I have only ever said that the drug war should end. Wow, what a statist I am. I even used Europe’s much midler policies as an example. I guess I’m a total statist, right?

                      Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

                    14. I have only ever said that the drug war should end. Wow, what a statist I am.

                      You’re a statist because a)you support the existence of the state and b) you’ve employed every fallacious justification for arbitrary state power that you can think of.

                    15. Well then half of all libertarians are statists. It’s a meaningless term.

                      // b) you’ve employed every fallacious justification for arbitrary state power that you can think of.

                      Not really, I can think of plenty, but I don’t believe them because I’m not a proggy.

                      Now, above, I didn’t do any such thing. Literally the entire debate my only point was that drugs do exist, they are different from other things, and addiction exists and biological drives exist.

                      These are known facts. They are so known they are common knowledge.

                      Are you going to deny these things exist?
                      What the hell are you even talking about?

                    16. Gosh, what’s wrong with you people? If you want to be taken seriously stop using false arguments for your cause.

                      John, for example, can’t understand that someone might support his view on governments while still wanting to be factually correct. That’s why he keeps insisting that Edwin is a fan of the war on drugs. Which is something that Edwin didn’t say.

                      Then Edwin, while you are trying to show where there are differences between certain substances you aren’t really explaining what your point is trying to make. So what exactly is it that you are trying to beat John for?

                      Here are a few facts:

                      – food, drugs, gambling and going to the toilet aren’t the same things. But let’s put it this way: every group can be used in a responsible way. But saying that the risks of addiction are the same for everyone or completely denying that something like addiction actually exist is pretty tiresome and wrong.

                      – addiction exists. there are various types of addiction. food addiction, drug addiction – did you know that being overly in love with someone and then getting dumped in that high butterflies-in-the-stomach-phase can have pretty much the same neurological impacts as trying to stop using a drug? So, yeah, addictions are pretty real. And they come from various places, with different probabilities, etc.

                    17. – banning drugs doesn’t help anyone obviously. but acting like the whole thing is just about choices really just shows how much of a phantasy world some people live in. people aren’t free to choose. sometimes choice doesn’t do that much, sometimes giving it all your strength doesn’t give much either. Addiction can kill people. So can depression. Both are a mental problem and both can be severe and if the case, have to be treated like a disease. So please stop telling people it’s just about choice and that addicts are really just weak. When in fact even trying in that state of mind is a very very hard thing to accomplish.

                      – I do think that the government needs to step down and help instead of block.

                      I am very sad about the Eric Garner case. And angry, I am, as well.

                    18. Food addiction does not exist. Have you ever seen anyone suffering from delirium tremens or death because they didn’t get their hit of sardines or gambling?

                      Pop psychology has been its own worst enemy in the debasement of terms with clear meaning. Addiction refers to the use of a substance that, were you to stop using it, would cause serious physical consequences. These consequences don’t exist for food, gambling, porn, chocolate, shopping, or any of the other substances that are not physically addictive, which is what the word addictive means.

                    19. Food addiction does exist. And this isn’t pop psychology but a current scientific view. There are addiction through substance and there is mental addiction. Pot for example can be mentally addictive – people have a hard time stopping – but isn’t physically addictive the way that cigarettes are. So, please stop being ignorant.

                    20. The word scientific has meaning. It isn’t “what I wish were so,” nor is it “what I read in my undergraduate textbook.” Scientific refers to that which can be demonstrated via facts derived from reality.

                      If you’re proposing that you can demonstrate that people suffer from withdrawal symptoms after they stop eating, let’s say, chocolate, feel free to demonstrate it.

                      And I hope you don’t take it personally that I laugh when you call me ignorant when your understanding of addiction is “people have a hard time stopping.”

                    21. If you return to the thread, it might be helpful if you could tell uswhat the phrase “mentally addictive” means to you.

                      Is it anything like “spiritual illness”?

                    22. Finally, would you say starving men are suffering from “food addiction”?

                    23. Now, above, I didn’t do any such thing. Literally the entire debate my only point was that drugs do exist, they are different from other things, and addiction exists and biological drives exist.

                      Cars and flowers also exist. Could you–oh, maybe sometime this month–get to your point? They exist, therefore WHAT?

            2. I bet every heroin addict has at one time in their lives played some kind of video game–I’m thinkin’ Donkey Kong…

      3. Conservatives refuse to understand that it is the person who makes the activity a vice

        On the contrary, I think they know that very very well. The history of vice has pretty much been witch hunts rather than social engineering. It wasn’t until the Prohibition was passed that the “social engineering” aspect was the sales tool of choice. But everyone knew it was really to stick it to the Catholics.

        1. That is a good point. But I think the witch hunt is more the result of the magical properties conservatives often attribute to vices. They think drugs or gambling make the person irrational, that such activities transform otherwise good people into bad. So yes, they certainly want to eliminate bad people from society rather than engineer it. But the reason why they want to do that is because they think the vice transformed them into being bad people and they want to keep it from doing the same to others. So they still want to eliminate the vice. It is not about eliminating the people. Doing that is just the means to eliminate the vice.

          1. But the reason why they want to do that is because they think the vice transformed them into being bad people

            There’s no doubt that stupid people, over time, confuse the effect with the cause. This is why society’s taboos constantly change.

            But I don’t think you can limit that to the conservative label today, especially since “conservative” is a code-word for Republican these days. Do you really think it’s conservatives who have labelled “catcalling” a vice? Do you really think conservatives came up with the idea of “rape culture”?

            1. It isn’t. But conservatives like Edwin who think that drugs are special and rob people of their free will and rationality are engaging in the same kind of thinking. Whether it is banning cat calling in the name of stopping rape or regulating opiate pain pills lest someone get addicted, the underlying principle is that same; outside influences can rob us of our rationality and it is therefore the government’s job to save us from them.

              1. //drugs are special and rob people of their free will and rationality

                Certain drugs do in fact do this to various extents. I did mention that how one deals with that is up to our free will. I even mentioned ways in which I have dealt with it.

                But the proggies’ don’t even argue that catcalling is actually harmful. They just claim it’s emotionally harmful. And that maybe somehow it leads to more rapes.

                Like you, they have absolutely zero to back up their claim. In addition, the proggies deep down understand they’re full of shit, they just don’t want to admit it. And luckily, very few people in the populace are actually that far to the left

                1. only if you have the genetic trait to make you susceptible to addiction which only exists in 20% of the human race

                  1. 20% is actually huge, for social effects of things.

                    Also, it depends on the drug. For any people who take heroin 2-3 times, I’d bet the number of addicts created would be like 80% of all people. Maybe as high as 30% for just one try.

                    Some things are just really addictive, brah.
                    Who’d a thunk? Directly injected brain-reward-juice into your veins would tap into the most basic biological drive mechanism? WHO’D A THUNK!? DERRRRRR!!!

        2. And the Germans.

      4. I welcome the balanced comment John. I would argue that statists of all political strips don’t get it regardless of the left/right spectrum. And what I’ve noticed is that while it’s true that progressives see the state as the ultimate power, conservatives see God as the ultimate power. In both cases they are willing to subordinate everyone’s freedom to the will of their favored power. And conservatives have shown that they can’t be trusted to simply live and let live, they will use the power of the state to push for God’s laws. Which is kind of a double nut punch of stupid.

        1. More than a few conservatives are atheists. So, the issue is not God. All God does is give you a source for laws. “Natural rights” whatever those are, do the same thing. The question is what is the proper role of government. Where does government end and the individual begin. Both Conservatives and Progs make the mistake of believing that government has a role over the individual and not just in governing and adjudicating interactions amongst individuals. To put it another way; does the government have the right or duty to save you from yourself or can it only step in when your actions harm others? You can answer yes to that question with or without God.

          Progs, many of whom are theists answer that question with an enphatic “of course”. Conservatives say “sometimes”. Conservatives think that generally the government shouldn’t act to save people from themselves but in these few special cases involving really evil vices, it can and should. They just can’t or refuse to understand that once you cross the line you can’t go back. You can’t save people from themselves sometimes. Once you save its the government’s duty to do that, you can never limit it to just a few select things.

        2. The Billy Sundays, the Klan, etc. were the first progressives. Modern progressives like to pretend those groups weren’t part of the progressive movement but it doesn’t matter because their goals were the same – government/elite domination over the individual. What we call Progressives today were merely splitters.

          In other words, the modern lexicon likes to connote “conservative” and “progressive” are two totally different things when they are basically just 2 sides of the same “government-domination-over-the-individual” coin (not unlike sunni and shiite). The product they are selling you is exactly the same, it’s just the sales pitches that are different. I call it market segmentation.

          1. Which party is coke and which is pepsi?

          2. At the federal level post-Reagan, I agree, but there is a hell of a lot of difference between the two parties at the state level.

            My GOP-dominated state may have a bunch of socon grandstanding in the pipe all the time, but they don’t rob me of huge amounts of income, threaten to imprison me if I carry a gun, or harass me with a bag tax every time I want to choose plastic at the grocery. Not defending the GOP even at the state level, but there’s a wide range of badness on the statism spectrum.

            1. That’s why I don’t like the term “conservative” – you get the original GOP’er types lumped in with the klansmen.

              Good spot by you to mention Reagan – an ex-Dem who got the other ex-Dems (the southerners) to dominate the GOP.

              1. The word conservative is as debased as liberal.

                Reagan was the tallest executive dwarf who favored an aggressive foreign policy and gun control. That he was superior to everyone post-Coolidge is a condemnation of the 20th and 21st centuries, not evidence of what a wonderful man the Cowboy Actor was.

    2. Remember when Dave Brat said that the state holds a monopoly on violence (which is the definition of the state in any sociological or political text, to say nothing of common sense) and Democrat talking heads freaked out?

      Say what you will of conservatives or wishy-washy pseudo-liberal types like George Washington, but at least they understand what the state is and how it operates. Sometimes it takes Barney Frank to make National Review look good.

      1. The state holds a revokable monopoly on violence granted to it by its citizens to be used in the name of doing justice and maintaining order so the people do not have to resort to vigilantism to get justice if they are wronged. If the state misuses that monopoly enough, its citizens can and sometimes do revoke it.

        1. You make a dashing Jeffersonian, John.

        2. Revokable. Maybe but I have a sick feeling in my gut that if the citizens did try to revoke their authority a lot of bad things would happen. Politicians never give up power willingly.

          1. They won’t. But the “monopoly of force” is more than that. What is going to happen if these sorts of cases continue is the public will revoke the government’s monopoly of force and do justice themselves and you will start seeing vigilante violence against cops who do these things and are not held criminally responsible. Vigilantism is not the result of evil people wanting to do harm. It is the result of the government failing to provide justice to such a degree its citizens have no other choice but to obtain justice themselves.

            1. Yes, Vigilantism has a repuration that is very one dimentional. The Progressives must depict ut asmracist and evil ,because otherwise it might get popular, and that Just Won’t Do.

            2. the state is not a monopoly on force. The right to legally use force is widely distributed among the citizenry depending on context (self defense) or with certain filings/licenses (bounty hunter, security guards, bouncers, bodyguards – they have to have a certification or license or whatever).

              What the state holds a monopoly on is JUDGEMENT.
              It’s an important distinction

              1. the state is not a monopoly on force. The right to legally use force is widely distributed among the citizenry depending on context (self defense) or with certain filings/licenses (bounty hunter, security guards, bouncers, bodyguards – they have to have a certification or license or whatever).

                Where do licenses and statutes regarding self-defense come from?

                What the state holds a monopoly on is JUDGEMENT.
                It’s an important distinction

                A monopoly of that and several other things actually. And the important distinction to make is that the state is ultimate judge of all dispute resolution including disputes involving itself.

            3. You have just described modern Iraq.

          2. King George didn’t over a 3% tax in a land far away while fighting wars in Europe. It’s safe to assume the powers that be in 2014 America have far more to lose. So, I agree with you completely.

        3. The state holds a revokable monopoly on violence granted to it by its citizens to be used in the name of doing justice and maintaining order so the people do not have to resort to vigilantism

          That’s a lovely social contract you’ve got there. No individual possesses any monopoly rights that can be granted to the state. I have the ability to knit a sweater, that doesn’t mean I have the legitimate authority to grant a monopoly of sweater production to the state.

          You may be able to legitimately delegate the protection of your own life, liberty and property to others, but you can’t delegate that monopoly of such services be imposed on others. In short, you can’t delegate rights that you yourself don’t have.

          1. well then, it’s a good thing nobody does that. They just do it over a small area we call a “country”, and once you leave one, you’re in the jurisdiction of another ( or none)

            1. well then, it’s a good thing nobody does that. They just do it over a small area we call a “country”, and once you leave one, you’re in the jurisdiction of another ( or none)

              Apparently you’re unaware of what a monopoly is since your working definition basically asserts that there is no such thing as a monopoly. A monopoly within each jurisdiction doesn’t cease to be a monopoly because of the existence of other jurisdictions.

              1. //. A monopoly within each jurisdiction doesn’t cease to be a monopoly because of the existence of other jurisdictions.

                What are you serious?
                So just because they can all be called by the same name, “government”, they’re the same thing?

                Different countries have different governments with different policies. If you don’t like yours, go to another.

                That almost the entire world has governments is not any one body’s doing. That is the outcome of social evolution over thousands of years.

                That the modern nation-state is the only organization that survived shoud tell you something, but I’m sure you won’t take the hint.

                1. What are you serious?
                  So just because they can all be called by the same name, “government”, they’re the same thing?

                  Yes there exists a category of things we call “states”. And membership in this category is contingent on certain qualifying features that you fail to recognize.

                  Different countries have different governments with different policies. If you don’t like yours, go to another.

                  And each state is by definition a monopoly. That’s not even up for debate.

                  That almost the entire world has governments is not any one body’s doing. That is the outcome of social evolution over thousands of years.

                  So was the triumph of slavery over cannibalism. The fact that something is the outcome of something else says nothing about the legitimacy, efficacy or morality of that thing.

                  That the modern nation-state is the only organization that survived shoud tell you something, but I’m sure you won’t take the hint.

                  Every state that has ever existed has failed and the vast majority of murders and thefts that have taken place in human history has been at the hands of states. But what’s the hint? That statism is the best solution to the problem of social order because it currently prevails?

                  1. Every state that has ever existed has failed <<br /

                    *the ones that haven’t bide their time.

                  2. FUUCCCCKKKKKK

                    I just wrote a big response. My browser conked out, response got lost

                    Short story is, each state is as “voluntary” as most other things in life are, that is, they are contingent on something else. We support plenty of payments that are required by doing other things when it comes to contract and land ownership.
                    I don’t like libertarians throwing out the faulty “monopoly” and “forced taxes argument because it makes us look dumb.

                    You don’t have to pay taxes because you are free to leave. Leaving is even easier than getting out of some contractual payments (try getting out of an HOA!)

                    200+ countries. That is not “monopoly” by any means.

                    Now if you don’t like the land-area based jurisdiction convention, that is a different story…

                    1. Short story is, each state is as “voluntary” as most other things in life are, that is, they are contingent on something else.

                      False. Completely and utterly.

                      We support plenty of payments that are required by doing other things when it comes to contract and land ownership.

                      So a person voluntarily submits to the state when they are born.

                      I don’t like libertarians throwing out the faulty “monopoly” and “forced taxes argument because it makes us look dumb.

                      All taxes are forced, again by definition. The state is absolutely a monopoly, poorly reasoned opinions on your part don’t change that. And you ought to refrain from including yourself among libertarians because once again you’ve completely failed to properly define your terms.

                    2. You don’t have to pay taxes because you are free to leave. Leaving is even easier than getting out of some contractual payments

                      First off, no you are not ‘free’ to leave. You need a permission slip to merely cross a border ontop of all the other government hassles, penalties and obstructions that go with emigration. Second, why should I be leaving and not the government? You have not demonstrated their moral legitimacy to tax. Taxes are not optional, only a dimwit who didn’t know about any of the words he was using would possibly make that argument.

                      200+ countries. That is not “monopoly” by any means.

                      You really missed the boat on this one. By your definition there is no such thing as a monopoly in the entire universe. If I owned every diamond mine on Earth, that wouldn’t qualify as a monopoly because there are other diamonds on other planets that I don’t own.

                      Now if you don’t like the land-area based jurisdiction convention, that is a different story…

                      Every non-natural monopoly that has ever existed had a jurisdiction within which it’s monopoly privileges were enforceable and jurisdictions where it was not.

                      But hey, maybe you’re right and every economist in human history that has discussed monopolies are wrong about what they are. I would tend think it’s more likely that you are astoundingly ignorant.

                    3. //So a person voluntarily submits to the state when they are born.

                      Oh come ON, brah. Really?
                      No one can choose where they are born, but that’s an element of reality itself, not the state.

                      Once you turn 18, you’ve got plenty of time to choose where you want to live.
                      SO yeah, I might support a 1-2 year tax grace period.

                      But once you been here a while, you’re clearly making a choice.

                      //First off, no you are not ‘free’ to leave.

                      Yup. You totally are.
                      Libertarians love to cite some obscure foreign earned tax, but that only applies to really high incomes. Plenty of young people leave and travel Europe working their way around, with no real hassle from Uncle Sam.

                      //government hassles, penalties and obstructions that go with emigration.

                      There really aren’t that many. There are if you want to revoke your citizenship, but that’s because there are serious unavoidable legal issues that come with it, since many people may be later tempted to ask the US for help from an embassy if they get in legal trouble abroad.
                      Either way, even if you just vocally declare it (revoking citizenship), Uncle Sam is unlikely to strongly hassle you

                      //Every non-natural monopoly that has ever existed had a jurisdiction within which it’s monopoly privileges were enforceable and jurisdictions where it was not.

                      Right, but I don’t hear you complaing about HOA’s

                    4. (cont.)

                      again, my point stands. It’s as “voluntary” as many, many other things in the free market that people at first choose to get into. Again, you have the right to leave, and being born somewhere is an element of reality, not the state.

                    5. Oh come ON, brah. Really?
                      No one can choose where they are born, but that’s an element of reality itself, not the state.

                      YES! Thus claiming to be my rightful overlord by virtue of birth instead of freely given allegiance is morally illegitimate.

                      But once you been here a while, you’re clearly making a choice.

                      Paying the extortionist does not make the extortionists actions legitimate. Acquiescing to a rape under threat of violence does not make the sex consensual.

                      Yup. You totally are.

                      I guess we’ll have to add the word “freedom” to the staggeringly long list of words that you commonly use but have no fucking clue about.

                    6. There really aren’t that many.[…]
                      Either way, even if you just vocally declare it (revoking citizenship), Uncle Sam is unlikely to strongly hassle you

                      Renouncing one’s citizenship absolutely comes with penalties that effect the protection of your natural rights and property rights. And being a person who has lived abroad for years and is married to a European, I have firsthand experience of the immigration system both coming and going. You couldn’t be more wrong

                      Right, but I don’t hear you complaing about HOA’s

                      Homeowners associations? Why should I bitch about them? Easements are a fundamental aspect of property rights and with homeowner’s associations, unlike states, you must voluntarily consent (by agreeing at purchase) to abide by the by-laws. Is there anything in the universe that you’ve bothered to study before forming an opinion about it?

                      It’s as “voluntary” as many, many other things in the free market that people at first choose to get into.

                      We already know you don’t know how to use the word voluntary. But we’ll add to that the term ‘free market’.

                    7. //Paying the extortionist does not make the extortionists actions legitimate

                      Yes, but staying and refusing to leave implies consent.

                      You’re really only complaining that the world doesn’t exist exactly how you want it to.

                      //Homeowners associations… you must voluntarily consent

                      Yeah, consent like staying for decades on end in a country is consenting.

                      You really are denying that people choose to continue to live in the countries that they do.

                      //Renouncing one’s citizenship absolutely comes with penalties that effect the protection of your natural rights and property rights. And being a person who has lived abroad for years and is married to a European, I have firsthand experience of the immigration system both coming and going. You couldn’t be more wrong

                      I really doubt your claims, considering you are an extremist. I’ve never heard of any such things. I suspect you’re outright making up the Europe thing. They hassle you a bit if you want to renounce, but that’s it. Your rights are protected by your new country, to the extent that they are. Which is why people make these choices.

                    8. Yeah, I just checked the Wikipedia page, renouncing is pretty goddmaned simple and cheap, all things truly considered. It looks like there’s a bit of a backlog, but waddya expect?

                      Maybe you’re complaingin about the laws of the country you’re entering? Again, that’s a different country.

                      Ultimately, what do you expect? It isn’t impossible just because it’s slightly difficult.

                    9. renouncing is pretty goddmaned simple and cheap, all things truly considered

                      Right so I renounce my citizenship and then what? I become a stateless person outside of the protection of any monopoly of justice?

                      Maybe you’re complaingin about the laws of the country you’re entering? Again, that’s a different country.

                      Entering the jurisdiction of another territorial monopoly of taxation, yes that’s a different country.

                      Ultimately, what do you expect? It isn’t impossible just because it’s slightly difficult.

                      I didn’t say it was impossible. I said it wasn’t ‘free’. Good attempt to weasel out of defending your patently false assertions.

                    10. Yes, but staying and refusing to leave implies consent.

                      You’re really only complaining that the world doesn’t exist exactly how you want it to.

                      ???? How does it imply consent? Why should I leave, instead of the state leaving? Does the government own everything in my possession and every square inch of the land? Apparently the only way to not consent to statism is to live on the moon. How very reasonable.

                      Yeah, consent like staying for decades on end in a country is consenting.
                      You really are denying that people choose to continue to live in the countries that they do.

                      The Afghans droned at their wedding ceremonies consented to that because they live in Afghanistan! They consented to being droned because they stayed there after the US invasion. I’m going to storm into your house, point a gun at you and force you to live under my rules and if you attempt to flee, you consent.

                      Again, the US government does not own my land, my family, my culture and thus to say that staying is consent is based on… what exactly?

                    11. *don’t attempt

                      I really doubt your claims, considering you are an extremist. I’ve never heard of any such things. I suspect you’re outright making up the Europe thing.

                      Okay then, “extremists” never live abroad or marry people from other countries. You got me!

                      our rights are protected by your new country, to the extent that they are. Which is why people make these choices.

                      Are they? Renouncing citizenship does not automatically entitle you to live legally under a different taxation monopoly.

                    12. you’re argument is so fucking stupid it doesn’t warrant debate

                      there are a LOT of things we are either born into or find ourselves in after a while.

                      Refusal to leave is de facto consent of being there. There is no other way of looking at it. All other suggestions would lead to nonsense

                      //Why should I leave, instead of the state leaving?

                      You’re basically describing a tautology here.

                      Like I said above, all alternatives suggestions, like the one you just made here, would imply nonsense. How would the state leave? It isn’t possible. The state exists entirely because the people within it largely think that it’s generally a good idea and worth the costs and trade offs. In case you didn’t know, revolutionary anti-statist libertarians represent a tiny tiny fraction of the population.

                      Like I said, you were born in the state, and that’s lrgely due to your parents’ choices. THIS IS AN UNAVOIDABLE CONDITION OF REALITY. Even your anarcho-capitalist state would have it, as it would unavoidably evolve to have land area jurisdictions.

                      You’re trying to negate the existence of consent with a really, really stupid situational game. And it’s really fucking stupid.

          2. You want to reject the social contract, have fun. The problem is that when you go and try and get justice on your own, good luck with that.

            Suppose I am living in anarchy land. My neighbors are good people and things would go fine right up until they don’t. So my neighbor’s kid rapes my daughter. Rapes do happen you know. I go to my neighbors and demand justice. They being parents believe their son and not me and tell me to take my whore daughter and fuck off. Eventually, I get tired of seeing my daughter’s rapist every day, so I shoot him. Justice done right?

            Well yes but his family doesn’t view it like that. They think I murdered their son. So they get justice and shoot me. My family of course views that differently and we now engage in a cycle of feuding and revenge.

            We don’t have government because everyone would become and rapists and murderers without it. We have government because we have to have a way to deal with the small number of people who would do that without it ending in blood feuds of the kind I describe. Government steps in and punishes the son so his family resents government not me and the feud never happens.

            1. There’s a distinction between government and the state. Obviously FS isn’t supporting a Hatfields/McCoys standoff–there has to be a system of mediation between disputes, and humanity will always be characterized by disputes so long as we have economic scarcity. So we have to be governed by emergent law or a system of societal rules that reasonable people understand, but not necessarily a god-state.

              There’s no reason historically or rationally to believe that monopolies of violence are the best way to resolve conflicts between individuals. People were doing that for a very long time in countless ways long before the modern democratic state existed.

            2. Saying that the government prevents feuds among two non-state parties is patently false.

              From the Hatfields and the McCoys, to the Bloods and the Crips, to the Italian mafia and the Irish mob, there is a long and storied history of feuds between non-state parties during times when there was an uncontested government in this country.

              And when there was a contested government, the greatest feud in American history took place. The government(s) didn’t save people from vigilantism related to slavery, it simply put uniforms on people and gave them a “legitimate” outlet to commit violence against each other.

              The only valid argument for government is that there will always be an institution with a monopoly of force, so it is preferable to have one with clearly defined rules that is answerable to the people.

              1. The examples you give are known because they are the exception. You giving them actually proves my point. And criminal gangs operate in the black market where you can’t go to cops for justice. If someone robs your crack dealing operations, you can’t call the cops. All gangs do is act as a police department for people who can’t call the cops. I pay part of my profits to a boss who in return kills you if you come and rob me. If we legalized drugs, drug dealers could call the cops and would no longer have a reason to pay the gangs and the gangs would be out of business.

                And in places where central government breaks down, blood feuds and tribal warfare is exactly what you get. That is what Somalia is. That is how it works in Afghanistan. There no government or justice system, so justice is done by the clan and the tribe and life is valued by the gun or the payment that is made to satisfy the aggrieved party.

                Hatfields and McCoys is what is known as “Tuesday” in many parts of Afghanistan. It is only famous here because we generally have had a justice system so such feuds are rare outside of the black market.

                1. It is wealth that civilizes people, not government. A strongman can rule a shithole into relative “peace” only by being the greater criminal.

                  You’re essentially arguing that, in Somalia for example, there should be a strong central government to become the sole target of the people’s ire. Provided it remains strong enough, then people will be dissuaded from violent action against, although their seething hatred will remain.

                  The problem with this proposition is that when the government is no longer strong enough to be a serious threat, the sort of wanton violence that we have seen time and time again is unleashed against everyone.

                  Never mind the philosophical argument that the government should serve the people, not control them.

                  1. //It is wealth that civilizes people, not government.

                    It looks like that, but I think a lot f it is technoogy.

                    Crimes of theft (car stealing, house burglary) are much lower than historically they were I think because of the technologies that have become widespread. Simple home alarms create a HUGE increase in the capability of enforcement.

                    Also high numbers of people and cops, that is, urbanization and huge populations (caused by modern medicine and farm tech), and, yeah, just lots of cops/

                    Most people know it’s hard to get away with crimes nowadays.

                    1. Most people know that getting away with crime requires being on government payroll.

                    2. //It is wealth that civilizes people, not government.

                      It looks like that, but I think a lot f it is technoogy.

                      Technology is wealth.

                      Also high numbers of people and cops, that is, urbanization and huge populations (caused by modern medicine and farm tech), and, yeah, just lots of cops/

                      Most people know it’s hard to get away with crimes nowadays.

                      What a fucking joke. Places with scant law enforcement presence or none at all enjoy the same precipitous fall in crime as everywhere else within reach of markets.

                      You didn’t establish that strongmen create prosperity, you established that you have no fucking clue what wealth is.

                    3. //You didn’t establish that strongmen create prosperity

                      Good thing I wasn’t trying to

                      When the hell did I even say that

                      Why are you guys such fucking reactionaries? What the hell is your problem when you can’t agree with your own side?

                    4. Good thing I wasn’t trying to[…]When the hell did I even say that

                      Also high numbers of people and cops, that is, urbanization and huge populations (caused by modern medicine and farm tech), and, yeah, just lots of cops/

                      What the hell is your problem when you can’t agree with your own side?

                      You are most definitely not on our side. You have precisely zero understanding about liberty whether in principle or in practice. You are not on this team, not that I can expect you to know what a libertarian actually is.

                    5. //You are most definitely not on our side.

                      Why the hell not? Because I understand that there exist biological drives and addiction?
                      Or because I’m not an anarchist?

                      You’re just trying to no-true-scotsman

                    6. Why the hell not? Because I understand that there exist biological drives and addiction?
                      Or because I’m not an anarchist?

                      You’re just trying to no-true-scotsman

                      Because you’re a state fellator, lover of political power and completely ignorant about sound economics. You’re probably not a Scotsman, but we can all be sure that you’re not a libertarian. I don’t mean it as an insult, I mean it as in stating a fact. Whether you know it or not, you entirely reject the moral philosophy of libertarianism, you don’t understand basic terms like ‘freedom’ or ‘voluntary’ and as demonstrated by your insights on the issue of monopolies, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume you reject rational economic theory too. You are not a consequentialist nor deontologist.

                      At best you’re a conservative and calling you that might be generous since you have no halfway rational opinion about what government even is exactly.

                    7. Brah,
                      you’re a fucking asshole

                      All I ever did was say that addiction does in fact exist. And that the monopoly-tax claim is faulty.
                      That’s it.
                      That does not put me outside of being a libertarian.

                      You’re just a fucking asshole.

                      It’s a good thing you do this shit on the internet, because in real life I’d be kicking your ass.

                      I made John above look like an idiot, and proved my point. Ditto with you and your stupid claims that rest on the unavoidable fact that you have to be born SOMEWHERE.

                    8. As Free Society points out, technology is (a form of) wealth.

                      Also, you are focusing on the stick and ignoring the carrot. Wealth provides new opportunities for people without the need to resort to violence.

                      In the big cities, criminality has taken refuge in the government itself. Urban police forces haven’t eliminated crime, they’ve become the criminals. The most powerful gang in New York is the one wearing badges and uniforms.

                      Lest you find this incredible, think of the Boston Police Strike. How much of a pay cut do you think the NYPD would accept before they started rioting and looting themselves?

                  2. It is wealth that civilizes people, not government.

                    That is absurd. Some of the most barbaric people on earth are drug lords who are often extremely wealthy. Al Capone made over a hundred million dollars a year in the 1920s, did wealth civilized him?

                    Wealth is nice but it bears no relationship to civilization. Ancient Athens was one of the most civilized places in history, but it was by any objective measure poorer than any third rate authoritarian shithole today.

                    You’re essentially arguing that, in Somalia for example, there should be a strong central government to become the sole target of the people’s ire. Provided it remains strong enough, then people will be dissuaded from violent action against, although their seething hatred will remain.

                    No. I am arguing that without a functioning justice system, you end up with blood feuds and vigilantism. You can have a small government that runs a proper justice system. Did you choke on the flames of that strawman?

                    Never mind the philosophical argument that the government should serve the people, not control them.

                    Yeah, never mind that argument because I argued that government needs to do justice and settle disputes. That has nothing to do with “controlling people”. How does the government have to control anyone to punish the man who raped my daughter so I don’t have to?

                    If you want to argue against my position, please try and understand it before doing so.

                    1. 1. Wealth is not money. Al Capone was definitely rich, however he never contributed anything meaningfully to the wealth of others, except perhaps for the lesson that the government can jail you for tax evasion even if it can’t prove any other crimes.

                      2. Wealth is not material goods. Athens was indeed quite primitive to modern eyes; yet it was wealthy enough that people could devote time to developing literature and contemplating philosophy rather than farming and fighting for their own survival all the time.

                      3. You are the one who chose Somalia as an example! Tell me, when was there a government of liberty and justice in Somalia?

                      By holding up the example of Somalia, a failed communist state, to support your argument that government prevents feuds and vigilantism, you are implying that this principle holds for authoritarian as well as liberal governments.

                      I did not necessarily disagree, since as I posited there is a mechanism for this to be true, but now you are complaining that your chosen example was inconvenient.

                    2. By holding up the example of Somalia, a failed communist state, to support your argument that government prevents feuds and vigilantism, you are implying that this principle holds for authoritarian as well as liberal governments.

                      Did you even read my post? I held Somalia up as an example of a “failed state”, as in one that can’t operate a justice system anyone trusts or relies upon.

                    3. And why can’t it? Surely it has something to do with the history and culture of the place?

                      I was considering your example more closely, whereas you seem to think “Somalia” is just a punchline.

            3. ppose I am living in anarchy land. My neighbors are good people and things would go fine right up until they don’t. So my neighbor’s kid rapes my daughter. Rapes do happen you know. I go to my neighbors and demand justice. They being parents believe their son and not me and tell me to take my whore daughter and fuck off. Eventually, I get tired of seeing my daughter’s rapist every day, so I shoot him. Justice done right?

              You are being obtuse and you know better. but you don’t know how to debate against anarchism so you argue against a false version of it. There are laws, law enforcement, courts, arbitrators, and criminal penalties in a polycentric legal system.

              If this is literally your interpretation of anarchism then you are quite clearly unqualified to even use the word in passing until you’ve gotten off your ass to learn something about it.

              1. There are laws, law enforcement, courts, arbitrators, and criminal penalties in a polycentric legal system.

                If you have laws and law enforcement, it is not anarchy. Suppose I take him to neighborhood court and they after a fair trial convict him and shoot him? Okay, that is fine with me. That, however is not anarchy, it is just local government. Ultimately, there was a higher power that has the ability to grab you and rob you of your freedom and or kill you if you cross it.

                You can pretend that is really “anarchy” all you want but that doesn’t make it so.

                1. Well, JOhn, he means anarcho-capitalist, where people presumably would choose a “government” body guard/arbitrator company, that presumably would also hold them to the “laws” it has.

                  Of course, he ignores the part where the neighbor could have just not signed up for one, or ignore its rules and rulings, or be rich and powerful enough that he has sway over it.

                  Also he’s ignoring the thousands of years of family feuding where this supposed system was actually tried, in early medieval ireland and iceland, and some other places.

                  //The examples you give are known because they are the exception.

                  Yes, he also ignored the hatfields-mccoys issue/fact.

                  IT’S ANNOYING WHEN SOME IDIOT IGNORES FACTS, ISN’T IT, JOHN?

                  1. that presumably would also hold them to the “laws” it ha

                    most forumlations I’ve seen would have an adversarial agency holding the laws to you

                    Of course, he ignores the part where the neighbor could have just not signed up for one, or ignore its rules and rulings, or be rich and powerful enough that he has sway over it.

                    I’m not sure you could demonstrate your non-understanding any more. The neighbor that doesn’t sign up for protection services is a decision that will cost him, not others. Nor are a courts rulings voluntarily complied with even under an anarcho-capitalist legal system.

                    Also he’s ignoring the thousands of years of family feuding where this supposed system was actually tried

                    How is family feuding a hallmark ‘anarcho-capitalism’? Families and clans have nothing to do with a system of competing law producers, enforcers and arbitrators.

                    in early medieval Ireland and Iceland, and some other places.

                    I’m not going to invest one single calorie into discussing medieval Iceland and Ireland with you because it’s aggravating enough arguing the meaning of basic words, let alone a historical analysis that you are grossly unqualified to offer.

                    Yes, he also ignored the hatfields-mccoys issue/fact.

                    Again, not a refutation of anarcho-capitalism. Reading a fucking book.

                2. If you have laws and law enforcement, it is not anarchy.

                  That is if your belief is that the word ‘anarchy’ is a synonym for lawlessness or chaos, which it is not. It means basically ‘no rulers’.

                  Suppose I take him to neighborhood court and they after a fair trial convict him and shoot him? Okay, that is fine with me. That, however is not anarchy, it is just local government.

                  Governance is not the same thing as statism.

                  Ultimately, there was a higher power that has the ability to grab you and rob you of your freedom and or kill you if you cross it.

                  Yes, that doesn’t mean that by default that higher power is a political ruler or a monopolist of justice production.

                  You can pretend that is really “anarchy” all you want but that doesn’t make it so.

                  If you accept the dumbfuck definition of the word as opposed to an actual translation of the word.

                  1. If you accept the dumbfuck definition of the word as opposed to an actual translation of the word.

                    That or I don’t accept your make believe “anarchy means whatever I want it to and makes my point”.

                    You just want to call yourself and anarchist but are smarter than most anarchists and realize how contradictory such a situation is. So your solution is to slip the government in where it needs to be and pretend it is not really government and that the resulting ordered state is still “anarchy”.

                    Whatever works for you dude.

                    1. You just want to call yourself and anarchist but are smarter than most anarchists and realize how contradictory such a situation is.

                      No. You either haven’t heard the five-minute presentation on basic anarchism or you weren’t listening when it was being presented by some intrepid reasonoid. No wonder you dislike Rothbard so much–you don’t know what they’re saying.

                      Anarchism is radical, but it’s not alien in any sense. If you’ve ever seen a conflict settled by a non-state third party you can understand why the best judges are not those who are elected or appointed by a democratically elected tax weasel and his confederates.

                3. If you have laws and law enforcement, it is not anarchy.

                  At least now we can see why you oppose anarchism, as you don’t know what it is.

                  Anarchy means no archons, no rulers. It doesn’t mean no law, which is an organic and permanent aspect of human society, nor does it mean no conflict resolution.

                  Reason should have one of its ancaps do a primer on this stuff every now and then. It’s surprising how often people who identify as libertarians in one sense or another don’t understand the basic arguments of each of libertarianism’s main schools of thought.

    3. Conservatives (at least the small gov’t ones) know that government is force, which is why they wish the government to be the least intrusive as possible in the lives of everyone – with the possible exception of those a$$hole$ who insist on breaking laws and hurting people.

  5. What’s with the auto-play?

    1. ^^THIS^^

      Especially since it is a film of them murdering the guy. I really don’t want to watch that over and over again.

    2. Auto-play continues until fundraising goals are reached!!!11!

    3. Just so the powers that be understand, it autoplays every time you post a comment.

      Incidentally, forcing people to watch an innocent man senselessly murdered every time you post a comment may not rise to the status of torture according to John Yoo, but I still say it’s a violation of the Geneva Conventions–even if we weren’t captured fighting in uniform.

      1. I clicked the Ad Block tab on the video, and it stopped it cold.

        Yay Ad Block!

        1. thanks, I just did the same thing

        2. So Ad Block kind of choked out the auto play.

          Too soon, and rude, I know…

  6. Eventually, telling a cop, “Please just leave me alone,” as Garner told the cops rousting him, becomes an unacceptable act of defiance.

    You don’t understand. Those laws were written specifically for cops. If you run afoul of one of those law or regulations or policies, you’re basically slapping a cop right in the face. The laws are there for them to take offense over. It’s personal.

    On top of that, you’re being defiant about it? Well, that’s just like walking into their living room and taking a huge dump on the coffee table.

  7. I hadn’t seen the video until now, but how that’s not manslaughter at the least is beyond me. He asked the police not to touch him, and in response one grabs him from behind in a chokehold and rides him to the ground.

    But since the race-baiters already shot their load over Ferguson, they won’t have nearly as much to say about this absolute travesty.

    I’m minding my business, officer. I’m minding my business. Just please, leave me alone. I told you the last time. Please leave me alone.

    Famous last words. People need to understand that there is a small minority of cops who enjoy hurting people, and the rest either offer tacit support in standard fraternal fashion or are in no position to oppose them without endangering their jobs and stirring up a shitstorm.

    Maybe Derbyshire can write an article about that and piss off the lawn-order types.

    1. ” but how that’s not manslaughter at the least is beyond me”

      It will probably be counted as a smoking related death by the CDC.

      1. I laughed. Libertarian thought breeds dark humor.

    2. Maybe Derbyshire can write an article about that and piss off the lawn-order types.

      I can’t see that happening – this is not an issue I have ever seen him address.

      1. That’s what was so great about Mencken–he pissed off everybody, as a true libertarian should.

        1. Derbyshire may be good at pissing off everybody, but he is no libertarian – although he shares some beliefs here and there.

          1. As far as bomb-throwing, high profile conservative pundits go, this is in Steyn’s sweet spot. He wrote a little blurb on it, but I’m hoping for a 5,000 word tirade somewhere down the line.

    3. lawn-order? Its like towing the lion, for all intensive porpoises?

      1. for the record the above is a test.

      2. I’ve been trying to get it to catch on, but it’s not a thing.

        Yet.

      3. Some of my neighbors use a lawn service company (it’s suburban south Florida. Nobody mows their own lawn) called Lawn & Order. Always liked that.

      4. It’s a doggy dog world out there. Typos like that are a diamond dozen.

        1. But did you see the apostrophe mistake and the comma abuse. COME ON GUYS GET WITH IT TODAY!

    4. Krauthammer even thought it was manslaughter.

      When the forces of LawnOrder lose Krauthammer, pretty much all they have left is DiBlasio and the Chauvista/Sandanistas.

    5. But since the race-baiters already shot their load over Ferguson, they won’t have nearly as much to say about this absolute travesty.

      All of the emotional effort and anti-government agitation was utterly wasted on Ferguson and should even be considered a setback for liberty. Meanwhile completely indefensible cop murders are proven by incontrovertible evidence and there’s not so much as a mouse fart coming out of the media when the cop just walks away.

  8. Outstanding article, 2chili.

  9. Tony will tell you that he trusts the cops who obey orders to choke people to death more than he trusts cops who would disobey that order. Because the ones who refuse to choke black men to death are clearly the real racists.

    1. Progs like Tony have gotten away with supporting a police state that effectively makes war on poor and minorities by claiming every act of police brutality is about racism not the police state. I think or at least hope that come conservatives are getting smarter and learning a bit from the Libertarians and starting to make a stink about these cases because of what they are, police abuse not racism. Doing this puts white Progs in the untenable position of defending their police state while still showing black people they are the only people in the world who can protect them.

      The black people really do get harassed more by the cops than whites, though whites get harassed too. The question the black community needs to be asking is why do white liberals who run places like New York City keep passing laws that do nothing but give the police an excuse to harass and oppress black people? Why the hell are cops arresting people for selling lose cigarettes? Get the black community to start asking those kinds of questions and watch the Progs drop the mask and return to their racist roots.

      1. claiming every act of police brutality is about racism not the police state

        ^THIS^

        And white people not named Bill De Blasio are tired of Sharpton’s schtick and therefore tune the whole thing out.

        1. A thousand times this. ^^

          The smartest thing that people who are outraged over this murder and want justice could do would be to politely but firmly push Sharpton out of the spotlight.

          He’s widely recognized around the country for the self-aggrandizing clown that he is, and he’s likely to do more harm than good.

          1. I was watching TV around 8pm last night and there was a freaking crawl across the screen announcing Sharpton’s press conference. He really is running the show in a way not seen since Dinkins.

            1. If I wasn’t sure to feel the negative consequences of NYC returning to its cesspool heritage, I’d be incredibly entertained by how much of a puppet DeBlasio is. This admin should be proof that so much as running for Public Advocate should disqualify one from the mayoralty.

          2. Sharpton’s looking pretty old these days. Maybe he’ll just drop dead.

            1. That giant melon head will crush what’s left of his body.

      2. I strongly agree, especially in regard to the relationship between the progs and the black community. I wonder when blacks will finally wake up and realize that the progs are not their friends and protectors? At best the progs are paternalistic wanks; more often they’re just users taking advantage of blacks.

        1. Perhaps they’ve grown accustomed to their slave masters?

      3. why do white liberals who run places like New York City keep passing laws that do nothing but give the police an excuse to harass and oppress black people

        Why, it’s for their own good, John! How can you raise such a silly question??

      4. Well, Tony has said that he hates poor people and doesn’t want to see them.

        1. When did he say that? Legitimately curious.

          1. I can’t find it right now, but it was not too long ago. He didn’t put it in quite those words, but he basically said that a lot of the reason he supports the welfare state is because he doesn’t want to have to see dirty poor people on the streets because he finds the offensive and unappealing, and not because he particularly cares about them, or something along those lines.

            1. Yeah, he’s admitted that he’s glad his gated community keeps them away too.

              1. Tony, by his own admission, is an upper crust New Englander who cares so much for the ‘less fortunate’ that he supports massive taxation on other rich people and a subsequent loss of opportunity for the peasants.

          2. I, too, can vouch for having seen the back-and-forth where he admitted to the “icky Poor” attitude.

            Talk about a no-mask moment for him…

    2. Tony will also tell you that believing in rights–like the right not to be senselessly choked to death–is like believing in magic.

      He’s a morally depraved human being.

      1. He’ll ALSO tell you that it’s authoritarian.

        Because believing that the majority of the citizens can’t ith any moral legitimacy decree that you can’t sell one cigarette from your pack of cigarettes to someone else limits the majority’s “freedom”.

        So to Tony, cops choking a guy to death for selling a cigarette = not authoritarian; saying the legislature should not have the power to pass a law setting this into motion = authoritarian.

        1. Tony IS authoritarian. That’s the only way that PROGRESS can be made – by giving government the authority to use whatever measures it deems necessary for the greater good of society.

          Interesting that he hasn’t shown up here to defend the State.

      2. He’s a moral nihilist. You can define rights in a billion different ways, from a long-winded Randian explanation to gifts from God to ethical intuition, but the point of rights chatter is that the principles by which people live together are not the result of words put on paper by the politically powerful.

        If you think the world runs only from top down control–that you’d rape your grandmother if only smart technocrats didn’t pass legislation outlawing it, which is the only way we know whether something is moral or not–you just might be a nihilist.

        1. Excellent observation.

        2. Agree. But even if they aren’t nihilists, they are certainly ignorant and arrogant. They don’t know how the world really works but they think they are one of the few who do (God’s chosen ones, in earlier times) and therefore should be the ones in charge.

  10. Corruption, then, becomes a lubricant to the system. Paying cops off to “please just leave me alone,” is a better alternative to watching armies of enforcers kill people in the streets over stupid laws.

    That’s only a temporary solution, and not a good one. There is nothing to keep the cops from demanding ever-larger bribes, or expecting bribes from more people for more things. And eventually the cops start taking bribes from muggers and robbers.

    1. But having said that, excellent article, 2Chilly. Particularly the paragraphs beginning with “And, also” and “You want.” Going to steal those, or at least rephrase them.

    2. What we call “corruption” is nothing but the market imposing its laws. Competition will prevent cops from demanding bribes larger than what the market establishes. As for taking bribes for more serious crimes, what makes you think it doesn’t happen already?

  11. So basically this is no different than when organized crime offs some guy for refusing to kick in some scratch for selling drugs within their claimed territory….

    Anybody who says “there ought to be a law” needs to justify killing their neighbor for breaking said law. But that’s crazy, nobody gets the death penalty for selling untaxed smokes!

  12. What’s the over/under on Garner threads today?

    What’d we have yesterday–was it ten?

    1. I will take 8.

  13. Here we go again: more cop bashing from the august editors of Reason. There was never a cop they couldn’t hate. What happened in New York was horrible; the cop clearly went to far. What Wilson did was justified. Period. Let’s not condemn every cop in America for the actions of one stupid LEO.

    1. Tip: Pervert doesn’t begin with P-R-O-F.

    2. Yeah, yeah, yeah. One bad apple. Not a culture of violence and dishonesty. Just a bad apple. Nothing to see here. Move along.

      1. But I thought common sense says “one bad apple spoils the barrel”

      2. The bad apple metaphor has never worked in the favor of people who use it, because the underlying reality behind “bad apples in the barrel” is that you have to remove them quickly so they don’t spoil the rest.

        Throwing around “one bad apple” over an abusive police officer without engaging the fact that he wasn’t fired, never mind charged with a crime, is a tacit admission that you don’t really have a problem with the abuse.

        If you aren’t willing to do anything about the “bad apples” now, then they’ll eventually be all that’s left.

    3. Would you like a juice box? Would a cookie turn that frown upside down?

    4. That was a pretty good impression of a troll, but you should have thrown in a “for a magazine called Reason” in there somewhere.

      But I’d give it a “C”.

      1. I’d give this a solid “B”, maybe a “B+”. The “for a maagazine called Reason” thing is played out, and it’s only used as an excuse to drink. The only reason I marked it down was the “august editors of Reason” line. Trolls usually don’t carry a thesurus with them.

      2. C- from me. I don’t believe in grade inflation just to get them to the next level, sorry.

    5. That’s a shallow interpretation of the article. The point is not to “condemn every cop”; it’s to condemn a society that uses government power to solve every little problem and then complains when the machine runs amok.

      1. a society that uses government power to solve every little problem

        Dear Lord, THIS!

    6. Fuck you Tulpa

      1. Is that Tulpa, too?!

        Every time I think it’s Tulpa, sarcasmic tells me it isn’t.

        But I still see him everywhere, too.

        Here a Tulpa, there a Tulpa, everywhere a Tulpa, Tulpa!

        Now I know what my uncle must have felt like when he came back from Nam.

        1. I am starting to think Tulpa was murdered by a male prostitute he was frequenting and his spirit lives in on the form of some of the regulars operating a “what would Tulpa say” franchise of sock puppets.

          1. Many years ago, Tulpa claimed to have gotten his name by combining his location (Pennsylvania with his Alma Mater Tulane = Tul – Pa).

            Oddly enough he stumbled on a word that has a very significant meaning.

            In Tibetan Buddhism, Tulpas are entities that are willed into existence by thought. Essentially, if you meditate and concentrate long and properly, a person can create an entity that has its own independent existence. Tulpas are generally held to be immaterial beings that nevertheless are conscious, sentient and capable of some degree of interaction with the physical world.

            So are the tulpa socks genuinely our tulpa returning, or the manifestations of his existence in our minds?

            1. I didn’t know that. Maybe so. Maybe Tulpa only exists because if he didn’t, we would have to create him.

            2. Never knew that he wasn’t named after the Tibetan will-being, which is one of the better myths used to indicate the power of the controlled mind.

              Here I thought Tulpa was being all deep, but instead he just went to school in Nawlins.

              1. Tulpa is actually a very shallow and unimaginative thinker… a plodder if you will.

                I suspect much of his assholish behavior is because his ambition in life was to be a genius who was feted as a ground-breaking mathematician, and he lacks the capability to make that ambition reality.

                I have a relative who wanted to be a professional football player, but was short and slight and that is the kiss of death in the sport. Eventually he accepted that his ambition was not possible, but it tormented him during his teenage years.

                I suspect that Tulpa is struggling to cope with his inability to realize his ambitions.

                1. Oh, yes he is. He didn’t get tenure and is now teaches Math 101 at some 8th rate school. He admitted it as much before I caught him out on his sockpuppeting adventures.

                  1. I feel bad for anyone who doesn’t make tenure. That said, there are worse fates than teaching Math 101. Ultimately, any white male born after 1965 who hasn’t won a Nobel Prize is going nowhere in academia. It is all minority hires and grey beards now.

                    1. I feel bad for anyone who doesn’t make tenure.

                      Working in academia, my sympathy is very hard to find. Not making tenure because their isn’t a slot or being passed over for diversity reasons is one thing. But you see that coming from far away and resign. Getting flat out turned down for tenure means that you didn’t follow the very clear guidelines, resisted the advice of your colleagues and peers, and basically didn’t kissed the right amount of ass. Whether or not you think that’s a good way to grant tenure is besides the point; that’s the rules of the game you have involved yourself in, play by them or don’t.

                    2. Yeah, that is a good point Sugar Free. The trick is getting the tenured tack slot. Those are the things that are impossible to get. Once you get one, the Department wants you to get tenure and will do everything they can to see you succeed. If you don’t, it is likely because you didn’t listen or pissed them off in some way.

            3. I think he knew about the meaning from the start. I remember early on in my time commenting here he linked suggestively to the Wikipedia article on Tulpas.

            4. Honestly, when Tulpa first came around, I assumed the name was a sly admission that it was a sock puppet “willed into existence” by a regular poster. I figured the Tulane+PA stuff was just a convenient red herring.

              1. I reject your hypothesis, because it would imply that *I* am the plodding unimaginative guy! 😉

        2. Tulpa actually has some tells that give away his identity.

          He’s conscious of most of them and consequently when he initially constructs a new identity he generally will affect a different persona lacking those tells.

          Since he posts here to scratch some weird itch, he eventually gets sloppy and one by one the tells return. It takes between 2 and 48 hours for him to out himself.

          I am 75% certain that Dr Doom in last night’s protest thread was Tulpa pretending to be a progressive. It’s hard to tell, because people with Tulpa’s personality flaws tend to adopt progressivism as their religion, so it’s hard to differentiate between Tulpa pretending to be a progressive and a genuine progressive of the ignorant-of-history subtype.

          1. There’s some really weird psychology behind that. Palin’s Buttplug, too.

            What they get out of antagonizing a group and being perpetually rejected has to be like what pervs get out of being beaten with a sock full of nickles and shit.

            …one out of every thousand people in this world are really fuckin’ weird, and I think this site gets millions of visitors.

            1. I wouldn’t classify Tulpa and Shriek (aka Palin’s Buttplug) together.

              Unlike Tulpa, shriek isn’t sentient. It was probably human once, but for whatever reason (perhaps huffing too many cans of paint for too many years) it no longer has a functional mind and its comments here are purposed solely to garner responses. It isn’t capable of comprehending the concepts being discussed. It merely apes human discourse in a bid to convince itself that it matters and is sentient. And the crazier the comments it generates the more responses it gets to enjoy.

              Which is why the abuse people heap on it are only encouraging it more; because abuse implies it matters and indifference implies it doesn’t and it seeks to matter.

              1. Tulpa is just a jerk and a conformist law and order type. Shreek is a just a troll.

                1. I kinda miss MNG and lone dipshit.

                  1. MNG was not bad until about a year of so into the Obama administration. He just couldn’t deal with the disappointment of Obama being such a shit bag I guess and degenerated into a troll of nearly shreek proportions.

                    1. Yup, Obama’s shitty reign broke MNG, just like it broke joe. They ran away rather than takes their lumps.

          2. Tulpa seeks only to entertain himself, but by virtue of the Invisible Hand of Trolling, he offers significant entertainment to everyone else, particularly when you consider how many hours a week he must dedicate to his art.

            1. It’s like he is an orphan slaving away in the comment mines for the benefit of his evil libertarian masters.

          3. Doom’s been on here before, I think he’s legitimately that stupid.

    7. Is this the best you have? Come one, I could troll better than that. If you want to defend this case talk about the rights of the accused and the harmful precedent of letting public pressure override the decision of a grand jury. Talk about the wonders of broken windows policing and how the cops can’t let even small crimes go ignored.

      It would still be trolling and sophistry, but it would at least be good sophistry.

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

    George Washington

    1. Cannot be said often enough Sarc.

    2. Like, OMG, that guy lived like a hundred years ago and owned slaves. How could someone like that have anything relevant to say about modern culture and society?

    3. I love that quote! (Although I think it’s “eloquence”.) I’ve been using it in my work email signature. I work frequntly with gov’t regulators, and I’m a little surprised no one ever told me to remove it.

      1. ummm, the people you work with not only know it they revel in the fact. So, yeah, to them you are cheering them on.

      2. I love this quote, too, but sadly it is apocryphal.

  15. This is a basic reality that the “there oughta be a law” crowd–whether prog or conservative–can’t seem to wrap their heads around: you can’t do just one thing. They really believe that they can set up this big powerful machine and then fine-tune it so that it only goes after people they hate. But like Skynet the machine acquires its own identity and decides for itself who and what it will smash.

    1. It’s criminal
      There ought to be a law
      Criminal
      There ought to be a whole lot more
      You get nothin’ for nothin’
      Tell me who can you trust
      We got what you want
      And you got the lust
      If you want blood, you got it
      If you want blood, you got it
      Blood on the streets
      Blood on the rocks
      Blood in the gutter
      Every last drop
      You want blood
      You got it

  16. Note: I apologize for the damned autoplay on the video, but I think it’s important to see just what happened.

    It’s cool. Rage helps fuel my day!

  17. The prog counterargument to this is “People should just obey.”

    They don’t view the multiple enforcement points creating the possibility of violent encounters as a problem because they don’t think enforcement should be necessary.

    The law or regulation should be written down, and everyone should instantly obey. Anyone who doesn’t obey or who gives the appearance of not being in compliance is a wrecker and a hoarder and deserves what they get.

    1. Which progressives are those? The ones actually talking about the core issues while you guys blather about how taxes are to blame?

      1. They don’t view the multiple enforcement points creating the possibility of violent encounters as a problem because they don’t think enforcement should be necessary.

        And then you show up and confirm it.

        By the way, based on your arguments in the Oathkeepers thread, you would trust cops who state that they would obey orders to choke people to death more than ones who state that they would not obey those orders, right?

      2. The core issue, Tony, is that the tax regime imposed on cigarettes falls apart without enforcement.

        That’s actually the core issue.

        We could have the nicest cops in the world – we could have perfect SJW cops – and people would still die in the street for undermining the cigarette tax regime.

        There are racist police in the world. Absolutely. Whose anti-cop rhetoric is more fierce than mine? Nobody’s. You’d have to go to Alex Jones’ site to find someone more anti-cop than me.

        But even if our cops were saints, enforcing the orderly progressive vision for our public spaces and enforcing the hundreds of thousands of petty regulations thrown off by the modern state requires the police to abuse the homeless, the poor, and the marginally employed. It requires it. Even when the police conduct themselves fairly and without bias. You might not like that, but it’s true.

        1. The core issue, Tony, is that the tax regime imposed on cigarettes falls apart without enforcement.

          Nailed. It.

          But the progs can never admit even the possibility that there might be flaws in their thinking so they ignore the root cause and pretend that one of the many intermediate causes (racism) is the actual root cause. Again, it’s the narrative.

        2. uhhh, Fluff…it is Thursday you know.

          1. My day is much better after seeing a troll get smacked down.

      3. Tony, bringing the mendaciousness and the vileness. Tony, everyone!

      4. See below Tony. All laws are punishable by death.

      5. So the reason the cops had for confronting Garner is not to blame for what happened. Interesting.

      6. Which progressives are those?

        The ones who write laws targeting poor people, knowing they will never be subjected to them.

      7. Re: Tony,

        Which progressives are those?

        The ones that rant about how racist everything is.

        The ones actually talking about the core issues

        Which core issues? About how government is good except when it’s racist?

        while you guys blather about how taxes are to blame?

        That’s a core issue: without taxes on cigarettes, a) there wouldn’t be a black market and b) you wouldn’t have 6 cops enforcing such petty laws.

    2. There is an answer to that argument. The typical prog is a middle or upper middle class white person who lives in a white enclave and rarely has any dealings with the cops. It is very easy for someone who never encounters cops to tell everyone to “just obey”. Someone like Garner lives in a black neighborhood and encounters cops multiple times a day. One of the few things Progs actually are right about is how nasty and horrible cops are to inner city young black men. That fact needs to be turned against them. Telling someone who is stopped, searched and harassed by cops daily or sometimes multiple times in a day to “just obey” is effectively telling them to live the life of a slave.

      I would love to see some asshole prog journalist who is defending this or some right wing law and order type like Heather McDonald who thinks stop and frisk is great live one day being treated the way the typical young black male in the inner city is treated by cops. Let them do that and then come back and talk to me about how everyone needs to “just obey” so the cops don’t kill them.

      1. We’re getting close to that experience at airports and train stations. Weary acceptance seems to be the overall response.

        1. Imagine going through TSA to go to the grocery store. That is what it is like being a young black man in the inner city.

          1. FWIW, I run the gauntlet every single day on the way to work. Granted, they only pull over “random” people to harass – it’s not as oppressive but it IS heading in that direction and for ALL citizens. The question is when do the citizens say “enough already”.

      2. John, I’ve given you a ton of shit in the past about other subjects (that you probably don’t remember), but in this thread, you’ve been on absolute fire.

        Well done.

        Just thought I should say it somewhere here.

    3. The other Prog argument is that it’s a culture of racism. You don’t look t the individuals involved and hold them responsible for the choices they made. The problem is society at large, their racism, and the solution is to change the mores of the public–through government action and education.

      That’s actually a fallback position. Their first line of defense is that the problem is all the Republicans who are running New York City. If there were only more Democrats running New York City, this wouldn’t be a problem at all.

      1. The other Prog argument is that it’s a culture of racism

        There is actually some truth in that argument but it is not what progs think it is. Even sub cultures within the US really are different. One of the biggest differences between them is their attitude toward rules.

        Your typical white prog journalist or activist or politician is a cultural dissident of the old Puritans. They like rules and are very good at conformity. They did well in public schools and at university. They always carry car insurance and obey the speed limit and properly separate their recycling. It is their culture.

        Black people, especially poor and middle class ones, are not like that. The culture is different. It is a freer culture. They don’t like rules as much as Puritan white people and never have. Maybe it is left over from the culture their ancestors brought from Africa or it is the result of slavery causing blacks to culturally reject control and rules after so many generations in bondage.

        1. Yeah, racism is a problem. But Progressives aren’t the solution.

          The solution from a policy perspective is holding people individually accountable for what they do.

          Government employees are made individually unaccountable by practice and by law.

          Unions make people individually unaccountable, too, and the cops in New York City are unionized.

          One of the problems with collective guilt is that the individuals who need to feel guilty the most are the ones who usually don’t feel it at all.

          The NYPD is racist? Yeah, I guess so–but not me. I’m a good cop! Why, I haven’t been convicted of anything.

          1. Racism is a problem but not in the way people think it is. To the extent it is a problem it is a problem because white Progs can’t leave people the fuck alone and expect everyone to be exactly like them. But remember Ken, people like you and I are the racist intolerant ones, not them.

        2. Good point. I’ve read a similar analysis in the book A Renegade History of the United States. The author makes some interesting points that many would find counter-intuitive, for example that whites didn’t like blackface minstrel shows as a racist put-down of blacks; they liked them because blacks were free of many of the uptight cultural norms that whites had to live with. The authorities who sought to suppress the minstrel shows didn’t do so out of some proto-progressive desire to protect blacks from racist jibes; they did so because they found the shows to be too rowdy and licentious.

          1. Its why black music and dancing got so popular with whites.

        3. “cultural dissident of the old Puritans”???????

          Do you mean descendent?

      2. The point is that white Progs pass these laws that seem perfectly reasonable to their conformist rule loving culture but that are totally unreasonable to the culture of most black people. And unsurprisingly, black people end up running afoul of prog nanny state laws at totally disproportionate rates than whites.

        The typical white Prog sees this case and thinks “the law was not to sell cigarettes, why did he break it?” and they can’t understand that black people look at rules and laws differently and don’t view it that way. Progressive nanny state laws like this one are a no kidding example of cultural racism in this country.

        1. Well said, John. That definitely describes every single progtard in Westchester County.

          1. Most progressives have little or no contact with black people and have no understanding of black culture. Black culture in this country is different than white culture. Part of it is that we are only a few generations removed from the great migration. So most black people in this country who are not recent immigrants are not that far removed from living in the deep south. As a result, black people are as a group friendlier and more gentile. People never believe me but I would rather have my car break down in the worst black neighborhood in Washington than a rich white neighborhood. The fucking white people won’t help and are likely to call the cops. Black people will come out and help you.

            White Progs don’t get any of that. They don’t know black people, are never around them and don’t understand them. And it never occurs to them that you can’t have the same laws and government in a black neighborhood that you can in an upper class white neighborhood. And I don’t say that to be racist. I like the black culture better than the rich prog culture by a mile.

        2. I’d go farther than this and argue that navigating bureaucratic rules is second nature to people who have been insiders their entire lives – so much so that they literally can’t imagine living any other way.

          The progs love to tell me that I’m utterly self-centered and lack empathy and am a prisoner of privilege because I reject their collectivism and redistributionism. But somehow I possess enough empathy to understand that a kid who grows up in the inner city might not be as good at maintaining flawless paperwork as some fucking white hipster asshole who went to Brown.

          1. You are right fuffy. Blacks are not the only culture in this country who can’t navigate bureaucracies. Poor and middle class whites and many immigrants are not any better.

            The typical white hipster asshole has never had to make a real choice in his life. They have never been poor or on the edge of real poverty. They may not have always had money, but they always knew they could run home to mom and dad if they had to. So it never occurs to them that something as simple as having to register your car every year and pay the state $50 or whatever might cause real hardship for people. That some people might not view $50 as no big deal and say fuck it and let their tags expire and that doing that gets them arrested and their car impounded and causes them to lose their job or endure any number of other hardships. All over giving the state their fucking blood money. Your typical asshole prog has no idea about any of that and thinks “just register your car”. I really fucking hate them sometimes or at best pity them for their ignorance.

            1. When I lived in Memphis I was able to escape renewing my tags for several years because my car was originally from Minnesoda and the year sticker was super small so it was nearly impossible to see from more than 10 feet away (in MN, the cops know if you are expired because each year has a different color tag).

              I probably could have scared up the money to pay the yearly registration fee, but I couldn’t get my car to pass the mandatory city inspection. It was a beater car and didn’t have a functioning parking brake and a few other minor things.

              In any event I drove for years worrying that if I got pulled over for any reason I was going to have my car impounded and then I would be really fucked.

        3. Its not only that other cultures look at laws and rules differently but that Progs (and others, I guess) don’t see potential negative consequences if it doesn’t directly impact them. “I don’t smoke and smoking is icky so why not try to tax people away from it?”.

          1. That too. Or its “I can afford a new car and to register it every year, what is the big deal”. Most of them have absolutely no clue how lower middle class or poor people actually live.

  18. All laws are punishable by death…

    1. Hey, if you don’t want to be choked to death for jaywalking, there’s an easy way to avoid that!

    2. Ultimately yes. That was the very argument that tipped me over.

    3. I’ll play the Hayekian: legislation is not law, which is why no one but the police and their masters give a shit about someone who might be selling single cigarettes on a street corner.

      Now if he’d been breaking in line at the supermarket or cutting you off in traffic, that would be a violation of law in the civilized world.

      1. That’s an interesting way of looking at it. I should read me some more Hayek.
        Though breaking in line at the supermarket, or cutting someone off in traffic could escalate in someone getting killed. =)

        1. Donald Boudreaux at CafeHayek talks about this a lot, if you want a free and condensed version of the argument.

          1. Thanx MJGreen. I will check out CafeHayek.

          2. That’s my first stop each day in my morning reading. Boudreaux is the perfect libertarian warrior, and Roberts is our a greatest, most peaceable ambassador working today.

        2. Law, Legislation, and Liberty is really long, abstract, and exhaustive, but he covers this somewhere in there. Like everyone else who hasn’t gone full Rothbard, I haven’t read all three volumes. Hoppe recently published a short essay which covers similar ground–pre-modern law being understood as a permanent cultural institution to be obeyed and enforced by the aristocracy/king rather than designed by statesmen–elegantly and quickly if you’re interested.

          Though breaking in line at the supermarket, or cutting someone off in traffic could escalate in someone getting killed. =)

          I’d be a lot less opposed to a shouting match turned deadly because of a traffic no-no than I would somebody killed because he was upset at being accused of selling cigarettes on a public street. I can understand how the former can happen sometimes, but the latter should never occur.

          1. Right on. =)

            1. “That’s my first stop each day in my morning reading.”

              I checked it out. It made it’s way onto my morning list as well.

  19. Meanwhile, the Fed recently declared that the economy is in good shape.

    That guy needed killin’. He was stealing from the government.

  20. Good one, Tuccille.

    We need to get beyond the case-by-case “isolated incident” “bad apple” narrative, and talk about how every trivial law, every single one from parking tickets on up, is a license to assault, kidnap, cage, and/or kill people who don’t obey.

    Every time someone proposes or defends a law, ask them “So you want people to be arrested, jailed, and exposed to violence if they don’t do X. Are you sure about that?”

    1. Yeah, good luck with that, RC. The po-po will continue to beat that drum like they did Kelly Thomas and the middle class will buy into that because of the MC’s inherent fear of disorder and instability.

    2. Every time someone proposes or defends a law, ask them “So you want people to be arrested, jailed, and exposed to violence if they don’t do X. Are you sure about that?”

      A thousand times this.

      I use this all the time when nanny-staters at my kids’ school start agitating about laws on junk food, exercise and leaving kids alone for an hour or two. They start insisting that we should pass an ordinance, and I immediately say “So you want to kill me because I let my son drink big gulps every once in awhile? Because I guarantee that the only way you get me to comply to such a shitty rule is to take my kids away from me. And I will be dead before that ever happens.”

  21. “Corruption, then, becomes a lubricant to the system. Paying cops off to “please just leave me alone,” is a better alternative to watching armies of enforcers kill people in the streets over stupid laws.”

    ^^This.

    If you support law. You support black markets, and corruption.

  22. The ones actually talking about the core issues while you guys blather about how taxes are to blame?

    Please list those “core issues” for us, Tony.

  23. What. The. Hell.

    I had not seen the video before. That was simply crazy. He clearly had a history of harassment from the cops and was begging to be left alone. He didn’t want to be touched by the cops, had the temerity to tell them to get off of him and that got him tackled by 4 officers and killed.

    There was no order to comply. He was just killed for begging the cops to show him some dignity.

  24. “You want a society taxed and regulated toward your vision of perfection? It’s going to need enforcers. Those enforcers are going to interact on a daily basis wth people who don’t share that vision of perfection, and who resent the constant enforcement attempts. They’ll push back to greater or lesser extents. And the enforcers will twist arms in return to frighten people into obedience. People will be abused and some will die….”

    1. This sums up my feeling whenever someone says,” There ought to be a law.”

  25. Generally, an excellent article. And I completely agree with the main themes.

    That said, refighting the Michael Brown debate was a needless distraction. This is an instance where you have a much clearer case that the cops were in the wrong. Garner didn’t punch the cops or try to take their guns (“tussle” as you like to say). Why detract from a stronger case with a weaker one?

    1. Judging by these pictures of Wilson right after he killed Brown, I’m not so sure Brown punched him or tried to take his gun.
      Wilson certainly doesn’t look like someone who was punched in the eye by a gorilla, and on top of that he changed his story once he heard about the robbery.
      I’m thinking the entire story is a fabrication.

      1. I’m thinking the entire story is a fabrication.

        You do. Fine. I respect that.

        A lot of other people – non-racist people, people who aren’t police cheerleaders – don’t.

        But, that’s just my point about the Wilson/Brown story. There’s a lot of room for honest people of goodwill to disagree. Bringing that case in here, where the situation is much clearer and the police are much more clearly out of line does a disservice to his argument.

      2. Wilson’s testimony is laughable. Even if everything outside the car went down the way he said (and he justifiably killed Brown while he was charging him) the entire inside the car scuffle sounds like bullshit from start to finish.

        1. Except doesn’t the forensic evidence support this more than any other part of his story?

          1. The gunfire evidence supports him, but the pictures of Wilson after the incident don’t look like someone who was being beaten within an inch of his life.

            He claims Brown threw a haymaker punch (swinging his fist around with the force of his body.) How do you even do that to someone sitting in a car? The window frame wasn’t punched through.

            Wilson says that Brown turned in the middle of this desperate fight for the gun to hand the stolen cigarillos to his friend, pausing long enough to talk to the other guy. Really?

            It’s just a joke. Yes there was some sort of fight in the car, but the testimony doesn’t pass the laugh test.

            And the prosecutor didn’t question any of this.

            What’s done is done. The grand jury closed this case, but whatever happened during the Brown shooting is not as clear cut as many people what it to be.

    2. The Michael Brown story didn’t include those details when it was first reported.

      The first version of the Brown story that was reported was that witnesses said he was many yards away from the police vehicle and had his hands up. Brown became the sample case based on that version of the story.

      The whole “There was a struggle in/near the police car, and then Brown ran away, but then he turned around and ran back” version of the story wasn’t out yet. And a lot of people don’t believe that version of the story. Others were too committed to using Brown as the sample case and now can’t back down or switch gears.

      1. yeah. When the Brown case first made the news I figured the cop was guilty. It was only later I changed my mind. The media fucked up that case royally.

        1. No, the media didn’t fuck up royally, they got exactly what they wanted from the case. The progs are scared to death right now of the possibility of a got like Rand being able to unite the middle class regardless of race, because if the fault lines became middle class versus everyone else as opposed to white working class versus everyone else, they don’t have the numbers to do shit outside of the ghettos/barrios and a few batshit crazy northeast/west coast states.

    3. Actually the article got one basic thing wrong in that the case was even starker: This was not about cigarets. He’d previously been charged with selling them, but this time he drew att’n by breaking up a fight. The cops just decided that this guy was their target, given any excuse. It was personal, I don’t know why, but I don’t think it had anything to do with cigarets.

      1. That’s what I thought as well. He was known to the cops, but wasn’t the reason they were called this time, they saw him there and decided to fuck with him for no apparent reason, and wound up killing him.

  26. Might as well re-title this “The Small-L Libertarian Manifesto”. Well done, J.D.

  27. “The law is the law,” says New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio

    The law is a natural and eternal facet of human interaction, it is something to be discovered pursuant to the science of ethics. Morally legitimate law is not a thing that can be created on a whim by a legislature using fallacious notions of ‘social contracts’ or majoritarianism.

    1. I had a junior high vice principal say that to me when I got caught smoking (except he said “the lawr is the lawr”). I almost laughed in his face. Then my dad came and yelled at him for a while for considering calling the police (this was before smoking was illegal for minors, but I was technically smoking inside the school). Then I got yelled at for a while. I don’t know why I’m telling this story right now.

  28. J.D,
    The autoplay is tolerable as long as this is the top post, but it’s going to become a real pain in the ass when it’s down the page and doesn’t start playing for ten minutes, then suddenly starts up and it’s all WTF? and you can’t find it.

    1. It only autoplays when I open the article. The front page is fine.

      1. Oh wait, it’s not autoplaying at all anymore.

    2. autoplay is never tolerable. fact.

  29. My parents unfortunately (but only briefly) brought up this case over the holiday weekend, mostly as a sidenote to how awful de Blasio and Sharpton are. Their entire case for why the outrage is misguided* appeared to be that, in resisting, Garner had backed another cop through a window. It wasn’t until after that the cop put him a chokehold.

    I never heard of this and never saw any broken window in the video. Looking at it again (against my will!), I still don’t see it. A google search doesn’t bring up anything relevant. Were they just completely mistaken? Was it a previous interaction with the cops, and they confused it with this one?

    *I’m trying to be charitable and assume they don’t think Garner “deserved” to die or anything. I kept my mouth shut and played with my niece through the whole conversation.

    1. It was an article of faith among some that Wilson had a fractured orbital socket under the post-incident photos came out. In that case, it was a police department source deliberately spreading a lie. It was probably the same in Garner’s case.

      1. That wouldn’t surprise me. I think they were basing most of it off of a press conference by the police union head or something. I figured it was exaggerated, but I also assumed it had some basis in fact.

        Maybe the ‘justification’ is that he could have thrown a cop through a window.

    2. I never heard anything about a window. As if that would be any excuse. The cops keep claiming to be “professionals” – well, fucking act like it.

  30. This is fantastic JD. I recently wandered back into the fever swamp of Facebook (why?) and was just about to post something that would have been less well said. Shared this instead. Keep it coming.

  31. There’s a story on the Yahoo news page about the vile comments on PoliceOne.com regarding Garner. Another sign that people might just might be slowly awakening ?

  32. This is fucking sick.
    ANOTHER obviously guilty murdering cop, not even INDICTED.
    A grand jury coming to the conclusion that there isn’t even enough evidence to bring the cop to trial. I cry bullshit on this.

    It is a trend and a pattern that requires dozens, hundreds of innocent people to be KILLED, before something is done about it. If anything.
    As for standards, what exactly would justify a finding that the officer did violate the law?
    Apparently it is perfectly legal for a police officer to walk up to your door, and when you open it they shoot you dead, if they subjectively THINK you have a gun.

    That is the standard. And that standard is unacceptable. These touchstones of threshold liability have to be shored up.
    The way it is now, there seems to be no way to get even indicted, let alone face trial for the obviously hideous acts that police are doing daily.
    Additionally, I would have to say there should be a special prosecutor assigned to address these kinds of alleged murders. Justice cannot be served when the prosecutor doesn’t want the conviction.

    1. That is nothing compared to mass murder.

      The Prohibitionists are involved in mass murder. The Reagan – Bush administration tried to suppress the finding that cannabis is effective against cancer. You can look it up. Of course the Democrats did nothing when they had a chance.

      Cannabis cures cancer. Cancer kills 586,000 Americans every year. Every Prohibitionist is complicit in mass murder.

      Pass it on.

  33. Calling it murder is dumb.

    1. It’s not murder if the person is wearing a costume? Is that how it works?

      1. It’s not murder unless the jury says so. It’s in cases like these that the people who can’t be bothered to learn what we mean when we distinguish between government and the state magically transform into the word police.

        1. It’s not murder unless the jury says so.

          You’re a well-read/well-reasoned guy so I’m assuming sarcasm here 🙂

  34. The real problem, in this and almost every recent case of police assault/homicide, is that an older, more savvy and less steroid influenced, generation of police officers would have had the presence of mind to recognize a suspect’s sense of panic and taken a step back before arresting them.

    It is a shame that the police, who BTW *have* been reduced to the king’s petty tax collectors, have killed yet another person, but the real problem is that they need to learn about human behavior, and not be so concerned with having their will immediately and unquestioningly obeyed. “Resisting” is now punishable by summary execution in this nation-state.

    If officer safety is now the primary concern, then understanding (often automatic) human responses to confrontation and physical assault would make them much safer. It’s simple… let the guy calm down a few seconds, talk to him in calm but firm tones, but don’t immediately climb on him like apes.

  35. Ugly core of government? Cops have to physically apprehend people when arresting them. Yep, it’s ugly, but so is how the gas is made that I use in my car. Lots of life is ugly J.D. Utopia ain’t happening my darling.

  36. I can’t believe the people saying, “He should have just submitted.” It’s disgusting.

    1. Friend Don’t have 31 priors and don’t resist arrest.

      Me So, clearly he deserved to die.

      Friend Cop probably should have been indicted.

      I’ll call that a win.

  37. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
    ???.s?w?i?p?e?b?o?s?s.?????

  38. I guess the new posters will say: Hands Up, I Can’t Breath!

  39. Though cigarettes are a legal good in commerce, “loosies” are not (in NYS) – particularly when they are un-taxed, and sold by unlicensed sellers.

  40. The two cases are completely different. The use of deadly force against Brown was justified and complied with laws and regulations. The use of physical force against Garner was not, and it was applied in violation of police regulations.

  41. If such “resisting” mandates the use of deadly force, then what if people start resisting Bundy-style?

  42. The fuzz demand instant,unquestioning obedience.They do not deserve that sort of thing.

    Otherwise,when I was growing up in Brooklyn, any number of “candy stores” sold “loosies”, individual cigarettes. In the scale of things, this was a minor crime, the graft and corruption in city government,including the police dept. was a much greater problem. In any event,I had never noticed that selling “loosies” had been elevated to the level of a capitol crime. Did I miss something way back when, or more recently? I departed NYC 1967 for reasons having nothing to do with the sale of “loosies”.

    Of course, there is that old saying about a prosecutor being able to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, or as is the case here, to not indict. This entire business leaves a whole lot to be desired,and by the way, the NYC PD carry Tasers don’t they. Why wasn’t one of these used?

  43. “Eric Garner’s Murder Reveals the Ugly Fascism Of Progressive Government and Doubleplusungood Enforcement”

  44. “Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue…that we couldn’t resist it.” – John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.

    Evidently it is illegal to be Black.

  45. Everyone knows that the State must enforce its laws, lest people live their lives without interference from those sent out by the politicians to collect the taxes they need to enforce their laws. Eric Gardner died because the State felt that it was more important to send four cops to stop a victimless crime than use those resources to solve the thousands of unsolved murders on the books. The irony here being that if he had a small bag of weed, the cops are under orders to not stop and arrest him.

  46. I started with my online business I earn $38 every 45 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  47. Paying cops off to “please just leave me alone,” is a better alternative to watching armies of enforcers kill people in the streets over stupid laws. But a better alternative still is an armed populace killing off the armies of enforcers in the name of liberty. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen in NYC, where many people are disarmed by gun control laws.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.