Offered a False Choice to be Forcibly Controlled by an Old or Brand New Police Authority, Minn Voters Granted Uncontrollable Agents Irresponsible Power Over Them to Provide a Compulsory Public Service

The NYT reported “In an election season that played out amid a national rise in homicides, Americans across racial and geographic lines rejected the most far-reaching calls for reinventing law enforcement and, in many cases, elected candidates who backed the current policing structure.”

After a white Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd in the street last year, protesters marched across the country demanding sweeping change to law enforcement. They demanded change but were offered false choices. So-called “radical” proposals, such as the one in Minneapolis, don’t eliminate police departments and actually replace them with private security. They just create another law enforcement agency with different costumed agents also having government authority who provide mandatory public service.

In reality “Defund the Police” was nothing ever more than a message on a sign, let alone being an actual crafted policy proposed to “legistraitors.” At best it is an ill conceived plan to somehow stop police brutality by giving the police smaller budgets. But having less money can have no effect on the granfalloon of “authority” or the right to forcibly control others. Police with small budgets in poor countries have no problem brutalizing citizens when they deem it necessary to do so. As such, “defund the police” was a reactionary slogan on sign that reflects real anger in the street about police authority and master servant relations between citizens and police.

The Movement for Black Lives’ is no threat to the status quo. In sum, the BLM platform wants;

1) cops to be held liable in civll courts when they harm or execute Blacks and Latinos and

2) the Government to hold cops accountable for crimes committed against Blacks and Latinos and be subjected to discipline or termination in a process they can participate in and

3) to stop cops from interfering with their “rights” and harming and killing them.

No radical stuff here. What could be radical about protesting against conduct that is already illegal and unconstitutional? Pushing back about public servants unlawfully stopping, detaining, harming and murdering people is not extreme or hate speech. It is normal speech. It is stupid clogic for puppeticians, dependent media, so-called counter protesters or even the protesters themselves to label BLM protest or its tame platform as radical.

The real threat to elites from “defund the police” is the fact that police services provided by the government can be summarily replaced by private security. Rather than reducing tax dollars budgeted to cops as a remedy to somehow stop police brutality, “Defund the police” or replacing police 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.

Security workers have the same rights that people have because all persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe the other person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. However, in the US legal system people have no general legal duty to rescue or aid other people in danger. Thus, security workers can be contractually obliged to aid people in peril and could be held accountable directly to the people who hire and fire them.

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. 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. As explained in FUNKTIONARY, “Unfortunately, governments only function by force. Once established, they put laws into effect by threatening persecution, imprisonment, fine, or death against all who don't comply with those laws--including the use of the force continuum.” [MORE]

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. Lysander Spooner, stated “It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?”

How did politicians and public servants acquire such powers?

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 super-human powers? Spooner explained,

“it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals.”

Similarly, undeceiver Larken Rose observes,

“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.‘

Government “authority” can be summed up as the right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral obligation to obey.’ [MORE] FUNKTIONARY defines authority as ‘a cartoon, an alleged image of the Law or the notion of an implied right and application of that "right" of individuals or groups of same to control or exercise external power over others, which has no meaning in reality.’ FUNKTIONARY further states, authority is rule through coercion. The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.”

Authority is a “cartoon” or an “image of law” because “people cannot delegate rights they do not have, which makes it impossible for anyone to acquire the right to rule (”authority”). People cannot alter morality, which makes the “laws” of “government” devoid of any inherent “authority.” Ergo, “authority”-the right to rule-cannot logically exist. The concept itself is self-contradictory, like the concept of a “militant pacifist.” A human being cannot have superhuman rights, and therefore no one can have the inherent right to rule.’

Authority and freedom cannot co-exist. FUNKTIONARY explains that authority is a farce. It explains, “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority, i.e. outside of one's Self and Self-Nature.) Jeremy Locke states:

There is no authority on earth that can rightfully govern your life. Born to this world, you and you alone control your eyes, your ears, your tongue, your hands and your mind. All authority which claims to be able to dispose of you and your abilities is deceit.

You were born to this world so that you might have the free agency of life. Life is liberty. With liberty and faith in this world, you can learn and do anything. Anyone who tells you that you must yield your mind, your body, or your possessions to authority is evil.

He further explains, “The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain the freedom of life by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death“ Rose explains, “the belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.” 

With regard to non-authoritarian security, Rose explains:

“Some of what is now classified as “police work”- in fact, all of what the “police” do that is actually legitimate, noble, righteous, and helpful to society-would exist without the “authority” myth. Investigating wrongdoing and apprehending actual criminals-meaning people who harm others, not merely people who disobey politicians-would continue without the “authority” myth, as something that almost everyone would want, and would be willing to pay for. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are already private detectives and private security companies, in addition to the “protection” services of “government” that everyone is forced to fund.

There would be only one difference, though it is a major difference: those doing the job of investigating and protecting, in the absence of the “authority” superstition, would always be viewed as having exactly the same rights as everyone else. While presumably they would be better equipped and better qualified to do their jobs than the average citizen, their actions would be judged by the same standards that the actions of anyone else would be judged, which is not at all the case with so-called “law enforcers.” Private protection providers would also judge their own actions, not by whether some “authority” had told them to do something, or whether their actions were deemed “legal” by “government,” but by whether those actions, in their own personal view, were inherently justified. Not only would an excuse of “just following orders” not convince the general public, but the agents themselves could not, even in their own minds, use such an excuse to evade responsibility for their actions, because no one would be claiming to be an “authority” over them.

Non-authoritarian “police”-if they would even be called that-would be viewed very differently than “government” agents are now. They would not be seen to have the right to do anything that any other person did not have the right to do. They could only go places, question people, use force, or do anything else, in situations where anyone else would be justified in doing the same thing. As a result, the average person would have no reason to feel any nervousness or self-consciousness in their presence, as most people now do when in the presence of “law enforcers.” People would feel no more obligation to submit to questioning, or searches, or anything else requested by private protectors, than they would if some stranger on the street made such requests. And if a private protector became abusive, or even violent, his victim would have the right to respond the same way he would if anyone else was behaving that way. More importantly, the individual who resisted aggression from a private protector would have the support of his neighbors if he did so, because his neighbors would not be imagining any obligation to bow to someone because of any badge or any “law.”

The best check against a defense organization becoming corrupt or “out of control” is the ability of customers to simply stop paying. Obviously, no one wants to pay for some gang to oppress him, but most people also do not want to pay a gang to oppress someone else either. As much as the average person wants to see thieves and murderers caught and stopped, he also wants to see to it that the innocent are not harmed. If the customers of some private protection company discovered that their “protectors” were harassing and assaulting innocent people-the type of behavior they were hired to prevent-the customer base would instantly disappear, and the thugs would be out of business. And if, in the absence of any claimed “authority,” the thugs decided to try to force their former customers to keep paying, the backlash from the people would be swift and severe, as no one would feel any “legal” obligation to allow themselves to be oppressed. [MORE]