L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 146, November 5, 2001
The One Percent Solution
The last comment of your missive to the TLE#145:
True, but then what you state is also a very good reason to not have cops at all. There was a period in our nation when there weren't any, and it was up to the citizens to prosecute the law themselves. The best part about that is that if that citizen was wrong, s/he paid dearly for the injustice.
Now, however, we have surrogates who stand in for us, who willingly do what they are told, and to boot, they are essentially immune to prosecution for enforcing a bad law, whereas we were not. Go figure.
To my way of thinking, sheriffs were, and still are, the best bet. Get rid of most cops jobs by getting rid of stupid law up front.
More law = more cops = more prisoners.
Conversely, the obverse = more liberty.
E.J. Totty [email@example.com]
Mr. Taylor, Mr. Colennesi sent me the letter that is in your 'letters to the editor' section this week, shortly after you posted my article "good cop, bad cop" last week. I responded to him with the following:
Firstly, I don't recall implying that if a cops kills a person while enforcing just "laws" he is a criminal. I wouldn't have implied that because (if for no other reason) no "law" that is created by criminals (politicians) is just. The "Law" has and can have, NO higher authority then natural law or natural justice, it adds nothing to justice or natural law, even if it is in coincidence with natural law or justice. "Laws" (made up by legislators) are either in contradiction to natural law, or they are meaningless reinforcement to it. Justice is just, and justice stands separate from the "law" and on its own. If a cop, kills a criminal (an actual criminal, not someone that has broken some made up "law") then he is in accordance with justice, as would be anyone else. But he is still a criminal on other accounts.
Secondly, in your hypothetical first day for John Doe the pig, you say," Its not a police officers job to make the decision on whether or not a suspect will face an unbiased, informed jury or a sham trial."
The trial by jury (as defined in magna carta) is DEAD in this country. The 'juries' of modern day are not juries. They are simply another branch of government. So, Mr. pig doesn't have to make a decision, he only has to accept reality.
Also you said, "If he kills him, he violates your definition of a "good cop" because he denies officer Darth Vader a trial by jury (as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment)."
This is a hypothetical argument, I know, but I made no statement that a person must be tried by jury before they can be considered a criminal and treated as such, don't put words in my mouth.
Further you say, "Even in the case you mention, that of someone who resisted a cop attempting to enforce an unjust law, other officers have every duty to arrest them and hold them for trial. It is the courts place to throw out the law the cop was trying to enforce and to declare the person not guilty on the basis of self defense, not the officer who has been handed a warrant to arrest the person."
Here you seem to be saying that there is some basis for thinking or some reason for assuming that the "court" system in this country is anything but a criminal organization, with criminal intentions. The "court" is the governments gun, it does not have any concern with wrong or right.
But, constitutional law and its enforcement is not even the subject in this country, and it has never been. The issue is whether or not the made-up, criminal "legislation"- that is in direct violation of natural justice- and its subsequent enforcement, is, our should be, binding upon anybody, and my answer is, no.
"Police" are the agents of a criminal organization, and they are the enforcers of that criminal organizations decrees, and as such, they are criminals.
Sean Gruber [UchmgwUpifmcdh@aol.com]
Kevin Southwick notes at:
So, what about privateer? It used to mean a ship owned privately, manned by private individuals, but carrying a letter of marque and reprisal from a government. That meaning is no longer useful, though, because various international treaties, including the Law of the Sea, prohibit the use of letters of marque and reprisal.
So, here's this word which usefully connotes private economic action, with nothing to do now that there are no more letters of marque and reprisal. In the fine tradition of privateering, I say we should pirate this term and put it to better use. Take it over, like the water logged mot juste it has become and steer course for clear waters.
Anarchonal-capitalist? Free marketeer? Propertarian? Nah. Let's be privateers. It sounds so much more exciting.
We can privatize anything. Even the word privateer.