[MORE] How does a reasonable, law-abiding non-white citizen living in a city run by elite white liberals measure the effectiveness of police?

It seems logical to conclude that if a high number of crimes took place in Black neighborhoods then it means that police failed a high number of times to do their job of preventing crimes or protecting people in Black neighborhoods. If it occurs frequently then it would seem then that police in general frequently fail to do fulfill their perceived role of protecting Black people. Nevertheless, the Dependent media, which functions as “government media” report crime numbers as if the police are helpless to do anything about crime. Often the dependent media portrays cops as victims. On a daily basis (through various forms of indoctrination in The Spectacle) we are made to believe that police are primarily engaged in actual police work and are aggressive crime fighters sacrificing themselves to act on behalf of people. Such conduct is perceived as fulfilling their legal obligation to all citizens pursuant to the social contract, an agreement whereby citizens voluntarily agree to obey government authority in exchange for police protection and other services from the government.

Yet, in reality, crime data demonstrates that police don’t protect Black and Latino people and are not really involved in ‘police work’ in our communities. Rather, authorities use the perception and reality of crime to stalk, surveil, manage, control and kill Black and Latino people. Any beneficial “public service” provided by cops is random, incidental or done only under the most egregious or convenient circumstances and even then, it is done primarily to maintain manufactured public relations and provided on a compulsory, involuntary basis. Professor Alex Vitale states, “It is largely a liberal fantasy that the police exist to protect us from the bad guys. He further states, ‘the police have never really been about public safety or crime control.’ As the veteran police scholar David Bayley argues,

“The police do not prevent crime. This is one of the best kept secrets of modern life. Experts know it, the police know it, but the public does not know it. Yet the police pretend that they are society’s best defense against crime and continually argue that if they are given more resources, especially personnel, they will be able to protect communities against crime. This is a myth.”

Bayley goes on to point out that there is no correlation between the number of police and crime rates.” Police in Chicago and elsewhere don’t primarily protect or serve Black or Latino people. In fact, last month a Chicago Tribune analysis found that its easier for Black residents to get pizza delivery than for them to get cops to respond to their 911 calls.

Rather, police exist primarily to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos within a free-range prison controlled by Government. Their goal is to place Blacks and Latinos in greater confinement.  Any protection or help from police to Blacks or Latinos is random or incidental. As FUNKTIONARY states, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary guards that remind us daily through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate State - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers."

Despite said practical reality it is an undisputed legal truth that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence from other private parties, unless the victim was in governmental custody. [MORE] and [MORE]. The Supreme Court has explained that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. Among other things, this means for instance that police departments and their officers have no legal duty to protect any particular person and police cannot be sued for any failure to protect citizens under the Constitution or any federal statute. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect them from harm from crimes. Courts throughout the nation have upheld and expanded on what is known as the “public duty doctrine.” Said “well established” rule from the Supreme Court that has been expanded upon by courts nationwide is known as the “public duty doctrine.” The DC Court of Appeals explained,

“the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. Riss v. City of New York, supra. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”

Most recently in the so-called Parkland “mass shooting” a lawsuit alleging a failure to protect children was dismissed without controversy. A federal court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims concerning a failure to protect by police while children were allegedly killed and injured.

Both the failure of police to provide protection services to Blacks and Latinos and the public duty doctrine are simply more proof the social contract between government and citizens is bullshit. Specifically, the theory is that there is a “social contract” between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens’ obedience and taxes. That is, people have agreed to obey the government and do so voluntarily in exchange for government services. Mutual obligations, a promise for a promise, are a necessary element of all contracts. Where persons mistakenly believe they have a contract and one party fails to fulfill an obligation, the other is necessarily excused from performing her obligation. A contract places both parties under an obligation to each other, and one party’s rejection of his contractual obligation releases the other party from her obligation.

With regard to the social contract undeceiver Michael Huemer states,

‘individuals are supposed to be obligated to obey the laws promulgated by the state. Sometimes citizens violate those laws, in which case the state’s agents will punish the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. Given the wide and indefinite range of laws that might be created by the state and the range of punishments to which one might be subjected for violating them, an individual’s concessions to the state under the social contract are quite large. The state, in turn, is supposed to assume an obligation to the citizen, to enforce the citizen’s rights, including protecting the citizen from criminals and hostile foreign governments.’

Citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, pursuant to the public duty doctrine, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it? ”

Obviously, there is no actual contract between the individual and the state. If such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? “Citizens” were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet individuals are legally and morally bound to obey authority. Also, the public duty doctrine (among other things) renders the social contract theory meaningless. Thus, the social contract is a device or trick that is parcel to a paradigm in the citizen’s mind that enables the coercive system (government).

Why does any of this matter? If there is no social contract then there is no rational basis for the belief in political authority - the basis for all governments, everywhere. Here, BW is not talking about the purpose of government or how government can be improved. Rather, the problem is whether the government has a right to rule over people and whether people have an obligation to obey authority. What is the basis of the government’s implied right to rule over people in the first place? Is there a rational basis to account for authority or a logical way to account for its existence?

Authority is the belief that some people have the legal and moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have a legal and moral obligation to obey.’ The most cited basis for authority is the social contract. However, as stated, the social contract is an illusion. Other commonly asserted basis for authority have been thoroughly debunked as mythology and are discussed elsewhere.

No person(s) or entity calling itself a government has the right to rule over other human beings. Authority is a granfalloon, an empty representation. FUNKTIONARY explains Authority “has no meaning in reality,” it “is the means by which society uses to control its population.”

Authority doesn’t need to be overthrown because it is simply a belief in people’s minds. The great rebel, Larken 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.”

FUNKTIONARY explains that governmental authority at its essence is one man ruling over another by force - not through consensual agreement. The right to forcibly control another means that representatives of authority are legally and morally entitled to attack people offensively; put their hands on people and their property without their consent in order to en-force obedience with a law, rule or command of authority (enforce the law). To be clear, all persons have the natural right to defend themselves or come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. However, authorities have the extra or superhuman entitlement to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on citizens to obtain compliance with their orders. Authority is the moral property that legitimizes the government’s use of force offensively; things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if any citizen did them are instead perceived as moral and justified. This means for instance when government agents take a person against her will to a police station it is called an arrest and incarceration, not kidnapping and false imprisonment, or when state officials administer a lethal injection to a man strapped to a gurney it is called an execution not murder, or when persons wearing blue costumes command you to stop walking and stand on the grass or suffer physical harm it is called an investigatory stop not an assault or threat to do bodily harm, etc. Larken Rose explains, “In short, “authority” is permission to commit evil – to do things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if anyone else did them.” Pursuant to the belief in authority only government representatives are entitled to impose and enforce rules on the rest of society (the right to rule). Additionally, citizens are believed to have a corresponding legal and moral obligation to obey authority at all times, without regard as to whether they agree with the law, rule or command. This moral property possessed by government is superhuman or extra because it has no natural source (all government power is said to come directly from the people, yet people have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence). However, because there is no rational basis to account for authority, no logical or lawful way to account for its existence then said moral property is void, a granfalloon or an empty representation. Thus, there can be no legitimate right to rule over people and no one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.”

FUNKTIONARY, explains that the unprovoked initiation of violence or force ‘is the basis of all social evils and can only be used in the sense of attack not defense, it is the force continuum.’ No persons calling themselves a government can exempt themselves from morality or can be specially entitled to harm other people. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by people are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by representatives of authority.

Contrary to lofty legal truths, in reality the legal system is entirely anchored in physical force/violence and government is non-consensual. Nearly every law or regulation is a command backed by the threat of violence against those who do not comply – here, violence means forced confiscation of property [payment of fines] or arrest or prison. Said threat of violence includes the ability and willingness of authorities to use deadly force against those who disobey. As explained by Dr. Blynd, nearly all “choices” presented to citizens by government are false; you can either comply with authority or go to jail or die. Huemer explains ‘force and violence are the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.’

It is unfortunate to realize that we are slaves in a system of authority. Elites have indoctrinated people into a false understanding of slavery as a total system in which persons subjected to it have little to no freedoms. If I’m legally entitled to force you to work against your will for 2 hours per day, are you still free? If an agent is entitled to put his hands on another man without his consent to involuntarily control his movements or entitled to attack him, is the man still free? Jeremy Locke explains, “Slavery is not a concept of totality. Slavery exists wherever the freedom of man is destroyed. The ultimate slavery is murder. Slavery stops people from being able to make choices for their own lives. Everything that restricts your mind, your movements and your speech is evil. Slavery is found in both the partial and complete destruction of freedom.” As explained, there is no rational basis to account for governmental authority – the rulership in the US is as illegitimate as the rulership by the Taliban in Afghanistan – there is no substantive distinction for the basis of rulership amongst any known governments in the world; all are mob-like, territorial gangsters governing based on the belief in authority and all are illegitimate.

Clearly, governments are not all the same - some allow more freedom or grant people more privileges (called “rights” by authorities) to do things in “their territory” than others. Nevertheless, all citizens are subject to the force continuum simply by being physically present in the government’s “jurisdiction” or land believed to be under the complete control of authorities (because they said so). Moreover, there is no way to opt out or decline participation in systems of authority in any country; we are born into this non-consensual arrangement of physical coercion and compulsory, un-declinable public “service.” FUNKTIONARY describes this phenomenon as a “Free Range Prison” or “Free Range Slavery.”

FUNKTIONARY explains, ‘There can be no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.’ An external authority who has a legal and moral entitlement to control your body, property, labor and currency against your volition whenever it deems it necessary is your master. Governing people is evil. You may delude yourself into thinking that ‘you want to comply with authority’ but you really have no choice in the matter. You might be hallucinating that you believe you have other options – but options only exist if a higher government authority says they do. Similarly, you may disagree with authority in some manner but you must petition a higher authority to change the situation to agree with you.

In the free range prison whether you reject or object to a law and whether you vote or don’t vote or whether you accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out and avoid being subject to another authority. Can a government be free if a person cannot voluntarily opt out of it? If a government is non-voluntary then what is it? Locke 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.”

It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place. Again, the point here is not to have a philosophical discussion about the purpose of government or history of government or how it should run. Rather, the question is - for what reasons does one man (or government) have supreme authority over another? Although explanation and justification for the right to rule is necessary, none exists. As such, you are a slave.

Where a critical mass of unwilling, disobedient slaves see authority for what it is change will occur. These rebels will stop playing along in their fake citizen role and pretending they have a master who tells them what to do and solves their problems. FUNKTIONARY states, “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.”

According to FUNKTIONARY:

“authority” – (so-called)—a cartoon, an alleged image of the Law. 2) a cartoon clothed in flesh and blood. 3) 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. 4) power over…which is thoroughly institutionalized. 5) ruling through coercion. So-called “authority” is the justification for remaining impotent. 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 not a force but a farce! “Every great advancement in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.” ~ Aldous Huxley. Government is the hefty price we pay for our lack of being further evolved as humans. “The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.” - Stanley Milgram. Regarding obedience to authority and carrying out “orders” Milgram states, “Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act; no one man decides to carry out the evil act and is confronted with consequences. The person who assumes full responsibility for the act has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society.” At its root, government is based on violence and coercion. Without violent authority, studies show that violent behavior will all but disappear in its wake. Authority breeds the violence that it combats and perpetuates. Violence perpetrated by individuals is learned through noxious social experiences typically suffered under some assumed “authority.” “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government.” - Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., 1967. [MORE]