From [HERE] House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Sunday no one is going to defund the police, and instead called for a "reimagining" of police forces across the country. "I would simply say, as I have always said, nobody is going to defund the police," Clyburn (D-S.C.) said on CNN. "We can restructure the police forces, restructure, reimagine policing," he added. "That is what we are going to do. The fact of the matter is, the police have a role to play. What we have got to do is make sure that their role is one that meets the times, one that responds to these communities that they operate in." [MORE] What else would you expect from statists who believe in the existence of authority and worship it? Dems & the GOP regard authority as some virtuous, higher power over humans when in actuality it is just people with power giving other people orders that they are morally and legally obliged to obey. Larken Rose states, “To expect the master to serve the slave – to expect power to be used solely for the benefit of the one being controlled, not the one in control – is ridiculous.”

The vested interests hope that magic nigratary Clyburn can also make “defund the police” disappear and will work tirelessly to erase any substance from the phrase. Indeed, as with many things, democrats advocating “police reforms” have demonstrated they have no idea of how to articulate what it actually means because it’s just a slogan they read on protest signs. In reality, liberal democrats and conservative republicans have trouble conceiving of anything, human activity or service that is not subject to the almighty power of government. Jacques Ellul explained, “the expansion of the state’s encroachment upon all affairs is exactly paralleled by our conviction that things must be that way.”

Non-authoritarian Security. If a “public servant," such as a police officer, is uncontrollable, unaccountable, can’t be hired or fired by you, has irresponsible power over you and provides a compulsory “service” then he is actually your Master. Rather than reducing tax dollars budgeted to cops as a remedy to somehow stop police brutality, “Defund cops” could simply mean community hired and fired trained security workers who have a contractual duty to aid people in peril and a natural right to come to the defense of others but who have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on people. Therefore, there would be no need for a police department. Private security is a way to solve the police are murdering & degrading Black people problem.

An essential difference between private security workers and police officers is that security workers possess no government authority or right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on other people. FUNKTIONARY explains that unprovoked violence against others or the use of “force” is the basis of all social evils and can only be used in the sense of attack not defense. It explains that authority, the right to rule over other people, is not a force but a farce, literally not real or “make believe.” Where does the right to forcibly control others come from??

Allegedly governmental power comes from the people. That is, we delegate our individual power to the government for it to act on our behalf. However, it goes without saying that people cannot delegate powers or rights that they do not possess. So if people have delegated their powers to lawmakers and lawmakers have empowered police officers to act on our behalf, how did police acquire the moral right to commit acts of unprovoked violence on people? Asked differently, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then how can you delegate or authorize police officers or anyone else acting on your behalf to do so? How did government representatives and police acquire such extra or super-human powers ? The rebel Larken Rose explains:

Who Gave Them the Right?

There are several ways to demonstrate that the mythology the public is taught about “government” is self-contradictory and irrational One of the simplest ways is to ask the question: How does someone acquire the right to rule another? The old superstitions asserted that certain people were specifically ordained by a god, or a group of gods, to rule over others. Various legends tell of supernatural events (the Lady of the Lake, the Sword in the Stone, etc.) that determined who would have the Tight to rule over others. Thankfully, humanity has, for the most part, outgrown those silly superstitions. Unfortunately, they have replaced by new superstitions that are even less rational.

At least the old myths attributed to some mysterious “higher power” the task of appointing certain individuals as rulers over others – something a deity could at least theoretically do. The new justifications for “authority,” however, claim to accomplish the same amazing feat, but without supernatural assistance. In short, despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses, And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.”

The average person believes that “government” has the right to do numerous things that the average individual does not have the right to do on his own. The obvious question then is, How, and from whom, did those in “government” acquire such rights? How, for example – whether you call it “theft” or “taxation”– would those in “government” acquire the right to forcibly take property from those who haw earned it? No voter has such a right. So how could voters possibly have given such a right to politicians? All modern statism is based entirely on the assumption that people can delegate rights they don’t have. Even the U.S. Constitution pretended to gran to “Congress” the right to “tax” and “regulate” certain things, though the authors of the Constitution had no such right themselves and therefore could not possibly haw given such a fight to anyone else.

Because each person has the right to “rule” himself (as schizophrenic as that idea may be), he can, at least in theory, authorize someone else to rule himself. But a right he does not possess, and therefore cannot delegate to anyone else, is the right to rule someone else. And if “government” ruled only those individuals who had each willingly delegated their right to rule themselves, it would not be government.

And the number of people involved does not affect the logic. To claim that a majority can bestow upon someone a right which none of the individuals in that majority possess is just as irrational as claiming that three people, none of whom has a car Cl money to buy a car, can give a car to someone else, To put it in the simplest terms, you can’t give someone something you don’t have. And that simple truth, all by itself, rules out all “government,” because if those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the right to rule over others (”authority”). If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.” If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.

No political ritual can alter morality. No election can make an evil act into a good act.

If it is bad for you to do something, then it is bad for those in “government” to do it. And if the same morality that applies to you also applies to those in “government”if those in “public office” have the same rights that you do, and no more – then “government” ceases to be government. If judged by the same standards as other mortals are judged, those wearing the label of “government” are nothing but a gang of thugs, terrorists, thieves and murderers, and their actions lack any legitimacy, any validity, any “authority.” They are nothing but a band of crooks who insist that various documents and rituals have given them the right to be crooks. Sadly, even most of their victims believe them. [MORE]