Their job is to protect the rights of the people, and to die if necessary to do so.
Somehow they've decided their "job" is to shake us down for money, to make us sit down and be quiet and not annoy them, and to do whatever it takes to keep us from having guns. And to murder us if that's what it takes.
Because of this, and more, it's past time to abolish the police.
This doesn't mean you'll automatically be happy if you reject politics; there are many factors. Sometimes life just stinks, and people using politics against you will usually make things worse. Making politics central to your life isn't going to make anything better. It's a form of self-harm, and it spreads like a contagious cancer to those around you.
Even when politics is a part of nature- such as when wolves fight each other for dominance or over food- it isn't something we should copy. They don't know any better. They also sometimes eat their young. We can do better than that. Only humans- some humans- believe it's a good idea to allow politics to be central in their lives. It isn't.
I would rather not be one of those who makes everything political. It doesn't have to be. Only thieves, murderers, politicians, and other criminals live by politics.
Politics is what you use when you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. No skills, no goods, no wisdom. Falling back on politics- using force to coerce others to support you while you steal, kidnap, and otherwise violate their natural human rights and try to destroy their liberty- is an admission that you can't make it in the world unless you can use theft, violence, or threats of violence against others. If you use politics, you're cheating, and you've already failed as a human.
You can choose to trade or find other mutually consensual ways to interact with others, or you can be political. There's no third option.
The weather doesn't care about your politics. Neither does your dog- unless you treat it politically by arbitrarily kicking it. Politics is completely meaningless to everything and everyone other than those you target with your toxic political ideas. And all political ideas are toxic.
To those who claim everything humans do is political, I say you've been doing it wrong. You've been a parasite on society rather than a benefit.
And yet, political people honor other political people with statues and by naming roads and buildings after them. They act as though they are the heart of society; as though the rest of us couldn't survive without their presence. Humanity survives in spite of politics and those who employ it, not because of it.
I'm in favor of showing society how irrelevant and useless politicians and their ilk really are.
How many other ways can I explain that to be libertarian (and thus, to be ethical) is to accept the primary human responsibility to not violate the life, liberty, or property of any other person, without exception?
How many times can I explain that calling a violation a "law" and saying it's your job doesn't excuse doing those things?
I got added to some communist's X list of "Nazis", and called "entitled" because I refuted (effectively, it seems) his argument that "land tax", which he differentiates from "property taxes" (yeah, I don't know... communism, I guess), isn't theft, extortion, or a ransom, because you "owe" everyone for any land you occupy. He made many bad arguments for his position. Then he got mad.
Angering bad people feels like a badge of honor. It makes me happy, and I want to do more of it. Yes, it's a personality flaw.
It's hard to communicate with those who believe in the imaginary right to govern others. They believe humans are flawed, but politicians are somehow exempt from this. Or that when these deeply flawed humans join together, their individual flaws cancel out.
It doesn't work that way. When people join together to do something they have no right to do in the first place, their flaws compound and expand-- there's safety in numbers. That's why flash mobs of looters who descend on a store face little risk. Those who seek to govern others enjoy the same protection. They are still looters, but they use "laws" rather than bricks.
It's hard to really communicate with people who see a significant difference between the two; those who believe that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor, rather than just another category of crime. We don't really even speak the same language. I say "theft" or "extortion"; they say "tax" or "fine".
They can use all kinds of pretty words to hide it.
They can come up with all manner of excuses to justify it.
They can list all the things they are afraid would happen without it.
They can even recite history to find irrelevant events to rationalize it.
If you want a way to violate others, but you don't want to look like the bad guy, I hate to break it to you, but advocating for a government to do it for you isn't the way. There is no way. If you violate others, you are in the wrong. Every time. Regardless of your chosen method. And government is the most dishonest of the bunch.
If a rule doesn't do this, or actually makes things worse, either because of the rule itself or how it is enforced, then a change is necessary. Either change how the rule is enforced so it doesn't make things worse, or eliminate the rule entirely.
I'm not opposed to rules. I'm opposed to bad rules. Harmful ones. Stupid ones. Punitive ones. Rules that make life worse.
And I'm opposed to anyone who enforces such rules.
When I point out that inflation is strictly caused by government counterfeiting money, they'll say "Yeah, but even if it didn't, greedy people would still raise their prices." You see what's wrong with that, right?
It keeps playing out the same, no matter the topic.
No matter what evidence they are presented with, they always have a "yeah, but" ready. It doesn't matter how delusional the excuse is, as long as they keep believing it.
And, at their foundation, they still all come back to fear.
They are afraid of living without being governed.
They are afraid of what will happen if other people aren't governed.
They are afraid of what will happen if "those people" get control of the government.
They never consider that the main problem is people, like them, who believe government is necessary, or even good.
They just can't let go. They can't admit it was a scam and has proven to be a complete failure in doing the minimum used to justify it, over and over, throughout ALL of human history, no matter how it is designed or run.
I am afraid when I encounter a situation I don't feel adequate to handle, and when the consequences seem too big to bear. Medical situations cause me fear more often than any other situations do. This fear doesn't inspire me to violate others, though.
Unlike what I see happening around me, my fear doesn't come from not having the ability or right to control other people.
I can see how it might happen, as in an active shooter situation. But seeing armed people- as long as they aren't wearing a badge or acting aggressively- doesn't cause me fear, or even stress. There has to also be that credible threat. And I can take measures so that I don't feel quite the helplessness others might. Which means I do have the ability or right to "control" bad guys in this way, so there's less fear than if I were helpless.
I'm not scared of people who are doing what they have a right to do.
I wonder why other people seem so afraid- afraid to the point that they want government there to protect them (even though it can't, or doesn't, do so).
They must be engulfed in feelings of inadequacy and helplessness. They must feel like Big Brother is the answer to their fears.
I wish I had the power to calm their fears. But pointing out that they have options, and that fear doesn't have to rule them, only seems to make them angry. As though they enjoy their fear and don't want to lose it.
There are better, healthier ways to enjoy fear than imposing a government. Ride a roller coaster- if that's not enough, make sure you're not secured in the seat. Or watch a scary (or gory) movie. Or jump off of bridges- tied to a bungee if you like. Fly a Tesla Roadster over a canyon. None of those fear-inducers violate others. Using your fear to justify a government does. Don't do that.
When I comment, usually taking the side of liberty and against the police state, there's this petti old karen who scolds me, saying I don't live in Clovis, so I need to mind my own business.
She treats the site as her own little fiefdom, threatening to ban anyone who expresses an opinion she doesn’t like- especially one about cops.
She is an unrepentant copsucker; apparently on a first-name basis with the police chief and whichever officers make the news on any given day. She reposts all the press releases the cops put out, as though it's her mission in life. She praises the cops whenever they do anything, and thanks them individually in her posts. She completely ignored the cop who recently caused a traffic accident and lied about it (but was found out and disciplined for lying)- as though it never happened. She defends Flock spyware relentlessly, because "crime". She gets angry and encourages people to report people to the cops for having any fun she doesn't approve of- and there's an awful lot she doesn't approve of. And, of course, she's afraid of almost everything she doesn't like or understand (which is nearly everything).
She's a busybody of epic proportions, inserting herself into almost anything, whether it's her business or not. It seems like the things that are none of her business excite her the most.
She's a really nasty piece of work.
Usually I ignore her, because she's not worth my time. (I've tried to mute her so I don't see any of her posts, but that hasn't worked.)
Recently, she got her panties in a wad because there's a "pot farm" next to the hospital, using "major water". (She's probably upset she can't report them to the cops!) I'll bet she doesn't have an issue with any Big Government project using even more water. Fortunately, several people knocked her down a notch, but I chimed in anyway.
I asked, "Why is this any less legitimate than anything you do with water? There’s nothing unethical about farming."
I guarantee you that if she responds, she will be snotty about it and have some excuse about "the children", or that it used to be illegal, that she believes it's immoral, or that her cop buddies don't like it. (Even though the cop I knew best used to steal it from people and smoke it with his friends.)
I just can't relate to people like her. She disgusts me in almost every way possible. People like her are the reason America doesn't have liberty.
It didn't work. Government has become the primary violator of those rights.
Abolish it.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary", but somehow we're to imagine that those same non-angels become better individuals when given the power to "legally" violate others with very little risk to themselves.
That doesn't work. The worst people among us are drawn to positions of government power. Government isn't necessary, but is clearly contraindicated under the same conditions used to justify it.
Abolish it.
"But if you'd just read this treatise, laying out why government is good and essential, you'll see why you have to accept it and work with it to get whatever scraps of liberty it is willing to let you have."
No. Delusional people writing down justifications for their delusions hold no interest for me. Liberty is superior to any system seeking to violate it. Even if it's a government you like and want to excuse.
Abolish it.
I know, abolishing government is hard. Maybe impossible (for now). So, in the meantime, at least stop pretending it has any legitimacy. Treat it as you would treat any freelance criminal gang. Do what you must to avoid being murdered by it. Protect your property from it in whatever way you can. Exercise your liberty in secret if it's too dangerous to exercise openly.
And don't buy the justifications that the statists are trying to sell you. It's fraud. It's a scam. Buyer beware.
(Story about some dire consequence of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.)
Drug abuse is stupid; prohibition is evil. Anyone supporting this has lost their compass.
“Your solution to such societal blight and expense upon the taxpayer for crime and welfare costs is what?”
Stop taxing people, and there’s no more expense upon the taxvictims.
End welfare for the same reason. (Charity works; welfare destroys.)
And what do you consider “societal blight”? I think if the stupid and evil War on Some Drugs is ended, a lot of the worst addicts will die off. The rest will either figure out how to be productive while abusing substances, or they’ll have to stop.
There’s really no downside unless you’re addicted to government and its “solutions”.
“You're an idiot and your village wants you back.”
That’s exactly the kind of response I expected. Thank you for confirming my hypothesis.
“You're living proof of your low IQ. Clearly you're told that often.”
And…
“Nothing to respond to. Your options are not logical or based in reality.”
-----------------
You be the judge.
Unless someone brings up government (or other career archators), especially in a fond way, they'll never know. I just don't think, or care, about it that much.
Other than writing to try to break people out of the spell, I mean.
It's only when someone starts trying to impose it on me- or on bystanders- that I express my opinion on the matter. And that is often only after I've tried to change the subject.
It's like a form of self-defense. Or an immune response.
That happens more than I'd like. But don't say dumb things, and it won't come up. There are so many other things I'd rather talk and think about. Literally thousands of better topics! I can't figure out why so many people try to make everything political. It's a sick way to live.
Then, even though I'll admit their superiority, I'll still usually prefer the appearance of the old materials and designs. There's just something classic about them.
If there's a brass and glass version of something that's now usually made of various types of plastic, I'll probably prefer the brass and glass version unless the plastic version is a whole lot better. And some of them are.
I'm a big fan of my polymer and steel guns, but for style, they can't hold a candle to my wood, steel, and brass guns. I understand the pros and cons of each. But I like what I like, and not always for rational reasons.
One thing that bothers me is when they try to make plastic look like wood and brass- that's lying, and it looks bad. At least they don't do that with guns as much as they do with other products (although I do have a 1940s shotgun with an original "wood-like" plastic stock). I hated the old TVs that had a plastic case that had a "wood-grain pattern"- if you're going to make it out of plastic, just do it and don't try to make it look like something else. When they stopped doing that and just left the plastic black, it was an improvement.
I don't even mind honest modern reproductions of old things as long as they are made of the real materials and work like the originals did. (I'd prefer an original, but that's not always practical.)
Liberty is the original original. It existed from the beginning- long before crooked, power-hungry humans invented the warped idea that someone should govern others. None of the modern plastic substitutes for genuine liberty are worth anything. They are cheap (yet excessively expensive), ugly, and broken from the beginning. They are not an improvement on liberty.
