Hi Ed,
There are several aspects to what you are describing, I'll try to briefly cover the basics of them.
A common aspect of all of them (apart from you and your thoughts) is an understanding of individual and interpersonal boundaries. Any increase in our understanding and respect for boundaries is a good thing.
First your thoughts; so long as they stay in your head and never translate into aggression against another individual, are yours alone - think what ever you like, you mind is yours, only you have direct access to it, and only you can choose to communicate what you do in there with others.
Whether what you do in your mind helps and informs your every day interactions, is neutral or irrelevant to those interactions, or actually obfuscates, confuses and is harmful to those interactions is a seperate matter to your freedom to indulge in those thoughts.
I had better clarify my own position, that I am against all aggression. I do not think that aggression can be justified on any grounds by anyone (individual or group. Shiny badges, blue or green costumes and silly hats and wigs do not grant exemptions to that principle). I also do not believe that a second wrong ever makes things right. I derive my rejection of aggression from my own self ownership, and from recognition of the individual self ownership of others. There's a pretty good introduction to the basic principles of "the philosophy of liberty" by free keene, on youtube.
Rejection of aggression does not mean rejection of self defence in response to aggression. Larken Rose, has explored the concept of self defence against individuals who claim to be entitled to aggress against you. You are welcome to make your own informed judgements on what Rose has to say.
I'm actually with you in rejecting the institution which is the thieving and bullying gang in blue costumes:
A monopoly can only exist through the aggressive suppression of competition - state sector cops are a monopoly, that's what they do.
By definition (ceteris paribus) a monopoly will give fewer and lower quality goods and at higher cost than freely competing providers.
due to the disutility of labour, and the desire to have a higher return from doing less work (as opposed to doing more work and getting the same or a lower return) there is a continuing trend of getting ever less and lower quality goods and services at ever increasing cost from a monopoly over time (where as free competition would have tended to give ever increasing quality and quantity goods and services at ever decreasing cost).
also by definition, a consensual exchange only takes place if both parties expect (ex-ante) to subjectively gain from it - in a coercive exchange, one party expects to gain at the expense of another - cops are funded from tax ie, coercively. If both parties had expected to gain more than they gave up - coercion would have been un necessary as the parties would have freely consented to the exchange. That coercion was used, shows that one party expected to loose out, and was forced to participate.
Without customers freely choosing what to buy or abstain from buying, competition and the profit and loss tests of a free market - cops have no way of knowing what goods and services, where and in what quantity are most valued by their "customers". This is the same calculational chaos and "knowledge problem" which besets all monopoly and coercive enterprises, and which brought down the largest coercive monopoly enterprise of all time - the Soviet Empire.
The result of zero cost at the point of use is excessive demand -hence rationing of supply must take place - this rationing is either bureaucratic and arbitrary, chaotic and ad hoc, or highly politicized.
What about the individual cops?
I'm willing to accept that there are a few people who join up with good intentions. Perhaps a few remain ignorant of what the institution is doing and stay there.
Others wake up and get the hell out, or, fall foul or the corrupt practices and the collusion of the corrupt, the narcissistic and the psychopathic individuals who are inevitably attracted by power over others - and either get thrown out or become victims themselves.
Both the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment show that the assumption of "authoritah" (see the South Park clips for Cartman's illustrations of just how ridiculous a concept the belief of one individual that he or she holds "authortah!" over another individual is in individual terms), very rapidly results in serious abuses.
Sure, you might get the occasional nice cop, but we all know what a "bad apple" is supposed to do to the whole barrel, and the incentives which I've partly listed are operating in favour of the rot.
There are several aspects to what you are describing, I'll try to briefly cover the basics of them.
A common aspect of all of them (apart from you and your thoughts) is an understanding of individual and interpersonal boundaries. Any increase in our understanding and respect for boundaries is a good thing.
First your thoughts; so long as they stay in your head and never translate into aggression against another individual, are yours alone - think what ever you like, you mind is yours, only you have direct access to it, and only you can choose to communicate what you do in there with others.
Whether what you do in your mind helps and informs your every day interactions, is neutral or irrelevant to those interactions, or actually obfuscates, confuses and is harmful to those interactions is a seperate matter to your freedom to indulge in those thoughts.
I had better clarify my own position, that I am against all aggression. I do not think that aggression can be justified on any grounds by anyone (individual or group. Shiny badges, blue or green costumes and silly hats and wigs do not grant exemptions to that principle). I also do not believe that a second wrong ever makes things right. I derive my rejection of aggression from my own self ownership, and from recognition of the individual self ownership of others. There's a pretty good introduction to the basic principles of "the philosophy of liberty" by free keene, on youtube.
Rejection of aggression does not mean rejection of self defence in response to aggression. Larken Rose, has explored the concept of self defence against individuals who claim to be entitled to aggress against you. You are welcome to make your own informed judgements on what Rose has to say.
I'm actually with you in rejecting the institution which is the thieving and bullying gang in blue costumes:
A monopoly can only exist through the aggressive suppression of competition - state sector cops are a monopoly, that's what they do.
By definition (ceteris paribus) a monopoly will give fewer and lower quality goods and at higher cost than freely competing providers.
due to the disutility of labour, and the desire to have a higher return from doing less work (as opposed to doing more work and getting the same or a lower return) there is a continuing trend of getting ever less and lower quality goods and services at ever increasing cost from a monopoly over time (where as free competition would have tended to give ever increasing quality and quantity goods and services at ever decreasing cost).
also by definition, a consensual exchange only takes place if both parties expect (ex-ante) to subjectively gain from it - in a coercive exchange, one party expects to gain at the expense of another - cops are funded from tax ie, coercively. If both parties had expected to gain more than they gave up - coercion would have been un necessary as the parties would have freely consented to the exchange. That coercion was used, shows that one party expected to loose out, and was forced to participate.
Without customers freely choosing what to buy or abstain from buying, competition and the profit and loss tests of a free market - cops have no way of knowing what goods and services, where and in what quantity are most valued by their "customers". This is the same calculational chaos and "knowledge problem" which besets all monopoly and coercive enterprises, and which brought down the largest coercive monopoly enterprise of all time - the Soviet Empire.
The result of zero cost at the point of use is excessive demand -hence rationing of supply must take place - this rationing is either bureaucratic and arbitrary, chaotic and ad hoc, or highly politicized.
What about the individual cops?
I'm willing to accept that there are a few people who join up with good intentions. Perhaps a few remain ignorant of what the institution is doing and stay there.
Others wake up and get the hell out, or, fall foul or the corrupt practices and the collusion of the corrupt, the narcissistic and the psychopathic individuals who are inevitably attracted by power over others - and either get thrown out or become victims themselves.
Both the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment show that the assumption of "authoritah" (see the South Park clips for Cartman's illustrations of just how ridiculous a concept the belief of one individual that he or she holds "authortah!" over another individual is in individual terms), very rapidly results in serious abuses.
Sure, you might get the occasional nice cop, but we all know what a "bad apple" is supposed to do to the whole barrel, and the incentives which I've partly listed are operating in favour of the rot.
Last edited:
