When I pointed out that cops cause crime, a statist complained and pretended he didn’t understand.
So I told him that cops enforce taxation and benefit from it.
I pointed out that cops enforce anti-gun rules, which empowers other criminals.
Crime is the act of violating rights, which cops do by their existence.
The statist objected, saying he prefers the state's definition of "crime"; acts which are "illegal".
The statist then said he interprets my definition of "crime" to mean "laws I don’t like”.
No. If that’s what I meant, that’s what I would have said. It would have been an entirely different conversation.
Some counterfeit “laws” even cover things I would agree with being "against the law" if I were lacking in principles. It isn’t about what I like or dislike (that's how statists think); it's about what people have a right to do. and what they have no right to do
Only a statist could be so wrong.