T
H
E

L
I
B
E
R
T
A
R
I
A
N

E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E


I
s
s
u
e

144

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 144, October 22, 2001
I Hear America Dying

Good Cop, Bad Cop

by Sean Gruber
UchmgwUpifmcdh@aol.com

Special to TLE

"Not all cops are bad" is a saying that I hear entirely too often for my tastes.(1) Of course, being an advocate of, and a believer in, freedom, justice, and individual rights, I hear a lot of things entirely too often for my tastes. But this saying bothers me more because I do not hear it exclusively from the mass media and the servile, foolish, knavish, and ignorant "public" at large. No, I hear this from people that I consider my friends and associates, and people that I would otherwise consider, without question, an ally in the protection of liberty and justice.(2)

I hear this saying from people that have been up to now, intelligent enough to cut through the twelve years of propaganda that they all had to face in their youth. People that had been up to now, intelligent and diligent enough to have cut through whatever degree of subsequent "patriotic", flag waving, fear-mongering, unmitigated bulls**t, that they have been subjected too since they left high school, and realize, and believe, that NO individual, government, coalition, group, church or cult can rightfully violate justice.

Justice is my stated goal, and violators of justice are my stated enemy.

And because justice is my stated goal and violators of it my stated enemy I have come to the conclusion that there are two kinds of cops, the good ones (dead) and the bad ones (still alive).

I hold it that the right to do whatever we wish to our property, be that property our house, be it our land or be it our own body, is as self evidently RIGHT and unimpeachable in its character, as anything that has ever been, or can ever be, stated, conceptualized, envisioned, recognized or dreamed up, by the human mind. I hold it that the right to defend one's life against all unjustifiable acts of aggression (including and especially injustice) cannot be violated without all of justice being raped (when I say, "raped" I mean subjugated or violated not the specific act of UN consensual sexual intercourse). And those that consider it in their interest or pleasure to violate justice, should "get rid of" (it cannot be gotten rid of, it can only be ignored) this right (the right to self-defense that is) first. And if it is every truly, "gotten rid of" then all of their work (the work of injustice) has been done by this single act.

I believe that any individual, coalition, group, government, church or cult, that uses violence to compel or coax or force other people into their coalition, group, government, church or cult, is an individual, coalition, group, government, church or cult that is necessarily in violation of justice (that is: what is just). Because (if for no other reason) all individuals have an equal right to join or belong to any coalition, group, government, church or cult, (or not) that they wish to belong to, if any individual has the right.

The current form of the United States Government owes its existence to the same things that all other current governments owe their existence too. So if I were to call the United States Government a big group of murderous (as well as power- hungry, fascist, thieving, opportunistic, treacherous and altruist) collectivists, I wouldn't be far off, would I? And what institution is it that enforces this murderous and collectivist coalition's policies? Oh yes, the cops ...

Cops don't "protect and serve"; at least they don't protect and serve justice (though they do seem to protect and serve the power-hungry and their interests very well) because justice cannot be violated to protect justice. If an individual must violate an innocent individuals rights to protect another innocent individuals rights, then they haven't really protected anyone's right at all, they have only changed the victim of injustice.

Owning a weapon, any weapon is NOT a crime. Putting potentially harmful substances into your own body, is NOT a crime. Leaving your "legal guardians" home before you are of "legal" age to do so, is NOT a crime. Having consensual sexual relations with your seventeen-year-old girlfriend at the age of nineteen, is NOT a crime. Yet the government, as it is called, prohibits all of these things and punishes those that do these things, and this IS the only crime in the matter. And "law" enforcement officers commit these criminal acts.

The county "sheriffs", the city "police", the state "troopers", the federal "marshals", the FBI the ATF the IRS etc. They are the guilty! They are the enforcers! Without them, all "legislation" would be taken for exactly what it is, mere idle wind.(3)

Cops go about their daily activities carrying weapons. And cops daily lock people up for doing the same thing.

Do you hold it that if an individual cop refuses to enforce a particular "law" that violates people's inalienable right to defend themselves, or one of their other rights as human beings, that they are removed from responsibility for the crime that they necessarily commit just be donning the uniform which insures, if nothing else, that they are the receivers of stolen loot, taken during pre-meditated acts of armed robbery?

If you will excuse the act of receiving stolen money (and the only possible basis for excusing that is that they (the receiving party) do not know that they are receiving stolen money. If a person of this modern day does not know that taxation without consent is theft, then at some point they are going to have to be considered less then mentally sound. And however much you may loathe killing or harming a crazy or retarded person; you must realize that at some point, unless a better alternative can be found, you will have to use force to defend yourself, unless you are willing to suffer the indignity and injustice of being robbed for all time) then why won't you then also excuse them for the act of ostensibly murdering a person by disarming them (as we saw happen on 9-1-1)? I, for one, would rather be killed then enslaved. And which is worse is a matter of opinion.

Or maybe it is said, "but not all cops enforce victim disarmament laws".

The answer to that is this: how far are these hypothetically "good" cops willing to go in their commitment to not violate people's rights (and in the particular case of victim disarmament, not be an accessory to murder)? If, for instance, one of the bad cops, is shot down, (as he rightfully SHOULD be) will the "good" cop then refuse to help in capturing the cop killer (as he SHOULD)? Or will the "good" cop then assist his fellow cops in apprehending or killing the cop killer (as he should NOT)? Will he pull his weapon and help the cop killer that risked his life to defend justice (as he SHOULD)? Or will he quickly change his mind about selectively doing his duty,(4) and brutally murder the innocent that rightfully killed a would-be violator of justice (as he should NOT)?

I think that the answer to that question is so obvious that I shouldn't have had to ask it, but the people that are in the habit of saying, "not all cops are bad" are in the habit of forgetting (or ignoring) that if you push certain people too far, certain people will respond with justifiable force, and then the matter becomes, even more so then it already was, a question of life and death. And under these circumstances, that is, when bullets fly, the "good" cops reassess their priorities, and apparently, their pension and their job security always win out.

The character of "law" enforcement in this country is the character of the enforcer. Claims to the contrary of this obvious fact (made by either cops themselves or their supporters) would be humorous, if they weren't so disgusting.

"If wearing black becomes illegal in my jurisdiction. Don't wear black around me." That is a saying that is, I think, a fair and truthful representation of the attitude that a cop must have to justify the actions that cops take on a daily basis.

If your goal is justice, all cops are bad. One: because they receive stolen money (which is a crime) as payment for their other crimes, and two: because they NECCESARILY violate rights that people hold by their natures if they do that which is in their "job" description (remembering also that trial by jury no longer exists and using force to compel a man to be judged by a modern day "jury" is tantamount to imprisoning him yourself). Unless they FLATLY refuse to do their "jobs" they are, and will always be, NECESSARILY, in the act of violating people's rights.

But you might still think that some cops do more good then harm. You might think that by going around as a type of "double agent" they are doing justice a service. By pretending to be right rapists, by pretending to be the most common threat to individual freedom in this country, they can somehow help it.

To that I say: for a "mole" (a mole, as it has been explained to me, only pretends to be a thug, and intends to show his true colors at the exact and perfect time, and thus strike a great harm to the government) to be good (if the goal is freedom and justice) then that "mole" must have NEVER been responsible for the violation of an innocent individuals rights.(5)

Even by ignoring that all cops receive stolen money, I doubt if there is one cop in this ENTIRE country that hasn't at some point in his career, violated at least one innocent individuals rights. If there is a cop that has failed to violate at least one individuals rights in his ENTIRE career, then I am certain that there isn't a cop that hasn't at least stood by and done nothing as one of his brethren in black violated some innocent individuals rights. And if there is a cop that has in his ENTIRE career, failed to violate even one innocent individuals rights, and has also failed, in his ENTIRE career, to be witness to even one of his brethren in black violating someone's rights, as he stands by and does nothing, I can only say, let him finish his first shift.

The purpose of this article is not to alienate members of the freedom movement from other members of the freedom movement. Indeed, any lessening of the government's power is desirable (as long as it is accomplished through moral means, this excludes party politics) in my opinion, and I would stand next to an objectivist, even though I am not one, as quickly as I would stand next to a libertarian, even though I am not one, in an attempt to that end. The purpose of this article is to say that it is completely silly to say that, "politicians are bad", to say that, "government against the consent of the governed is not government but merely tyranny", to say that, "the initiation of force is wrong," to say that, "no politician can hold any office and not be a criminal", and to then say, in all seriousness, "but, not all cops (that is to say, not all that commit these injustices) are bad."



(1) If, by saying "not all cops are bad" it is meant that, "some cops are worse then others", then I agree. But if by saying "not all cops are bad" it is meant that, "the great tyrannies committed by some cops excuse the smaller tyrannies committed by others," or "the great tyrannies committed by the politicians excuse the smaller tyrannies committed by the cops", then I disagree. In fact it is my opinion, and my intention to hopefully prove, that the "laws", as they are called, are meaningless, and less important, then the enforcement of them, and those that enforce them, should be considered worse, then those that "make" them.

(2) Liberty is justice, and justice is liberty. You cannot have either without the other.

(3) Politicians, being criminals, are lazy. If politicians didn't already have the instrument of plunder known as the government, they would likely have never been able to conceive of, or invent a system of their own, that could do anywhere near as much harm to justice as this government has been able to. Besides if they did manage to invent a system of plunder such as they have been given by our "well intentioned" constitution, then at least, people would recognize them for what they truly are, criminals. They would have no delusions that it was "their" government, that it protected their rights. They would recognize it (the system) for that which it would be, and what it would be, is exactly what the government is, a group of tyrants and thieves (and murderers when it becomes necessary). And the government's crimes are put into action or committed by cops.

(4) It isn't really a duty. It is only a tacit agreement entered into by criminals with other criminals for the purpose of committing crimes.

(5) If it be answered that, you must "break a few eggs (heads) to make an omelet (desirable goal)", then when does that omelet (desirable goal) become so contaminated by the eggs (innocent people's lives) that were destroyed in the process of the omelet making, that a moral person is no longer able to enjoy it? If one innocent person must NECESSARILY die or be injured for "justice" to be accomplished, then I would no longer desire "justice." And my reasoning for this is that justice is the system of just acts, if just-ness must be violated to accomplish justice it would have thereby proven itself a contradiction.



Previous to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 144, October 22, 2001.