The Exigent Duality
People see it, yet don't - 08:15 CST, 1/07/16 (Sniper)
Riddle me this:
  • Police officers derive their power "from the people." "The people" have, so I'm told, implicitly delegated their right of self-defense to said police officers.
  • You can not delegate a right that you do not have. You can, however, delegate a right that you do have, such as the natural right to self-defense.
  • Any function the police perform that is not a result of a delegation of a natural right from "the people" is illegitimate.
  • Any function the police perform that is a result of a delegation of a natural right from "the people" is legitimate.
  • A person is under no moral or logical obligation to obey a police officer who is performing an illegitimate function. In fact, the police officer is under a moral and logical obligation to not perform those illigitimate functions, and is acting immorally by doing them.
  • "Justice" means that people acting morally and logically are able to live their lives unimpeded, while those acting immorally and illogically are impeded in their abilities to further harm others. "Injustice" is exactly the opposite.
  • In America today, if a person resists a police officer who is acting immorally and illogically, they are handcuffed, beaten, or even killed. If they survive, the government-run court system throws them in jail for having resisted a police officer. The victim-- the person who resisted the cop-- is not able to live his life unimpeded.
  • In America today, if a cop acts immorally and illogically, they are seldom-- as in, on 99.999% of the occasions-- impeded in their ability to further engage in predatory actions.
  • In America today, "justice" is dead; long live "injustice."


If actors are allowed to engage in immoral acts, free of consequences, for too long, they begin to develop a power complex, a sense of entitlement, and a hubristic nature. In every single interaction I've ever had with a police officer, I was immediately overwhelmed by those three traits existing in the cop:

  • Like the time I was pulled over for "speeding"; the cop drove at least 60 mph in his pseudo-arbitrary "30 mph zone" to catch me, so he could stand there and hubristically lecture me through my driver's side window about what a dangerous driver I was for having gone 35 mph in the same "zone." There were no pedestrians or people at all anywhere even remotely close to us-- so who specifically had delegated their right of self-defense in that case? Had I endangered anyone? The cop also, in the act of "pulling me over", coersed me into stopping my car, rolling down my window, and handing over my property (driver's license)-- despite the fact that "the people" don't have those rights.

  • Or what about the time a cop was weaving in and out of traffic at night, while "speeding", with his headlights off, happened to change lanes behind me as I was attempting to get out of his way? He forced both of us to stop, then angrily whined about how I was holding him up from an "important place he had to be"?

  • Or how about the time when a cop was standing in the middle of a road, for no apparent reason, coersing cars to stop so he could boss their drivers around with hand gestures? I think the cops call this "directing traffic." I was driving a manual transmission car, and he'd stopped me on an upward-facing part of a hill. As he signalled for me to "go", I revved my engine to 2000 rpm so I wouldn't roll backwards into the car behind me. Because I revved my engine ever-so-slightly while his hand was two tenths of a second from having completed its "you can go" motion, he exhibited the most terrifyingly animalistic, almost ape-like, utter rage-filled face I'd ever seen from a human being, shouting to me at the top of his lungs: "STOP!!!"


I only use "the cops" in this post because the examples are so concrete, easy to articulate, and readily familiar to the average person's lived experiences. Now, apply the exact same above logic to the dozens and dozens of alphabet soup government regulatory agencies, the IRS, Federal Reserve, and Congress, just to name a few examples. Examine every one of the thousands and thousands of mandates on the books that Americans must obey, and label each one: legitimate, or illegitimate, according to the above logic.

75% of people polled think there is "widespread government corruption." Even though I doubt most of these same people could concretely identify what "corruption" means, they at least implicitly recognize the very deduction I lay out in the beginning of this post.

Unfortunately, because they can't concretely identify what "corruption" means, they decide that they merely need new "leaders", and turn to some of the world's greatest Fascists, such as Hitlery Clinton or Teflon Don. What they don't see is that the entire social paradigm is incorrect; rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic isn't going to help. And with leaders like Clinton or Trump, the problem will in fact get worse.

The solution, of course, is to passively undermine the entire State apparatus-- definitely don't vote, and avoid paying taxes to the maximum extent possible (perhaps by living "off the grid")-- and then, following the collapse of said State, institute an egalitarian society that strictly rejects illegitimate authority by following the anarchist principles of peace and mutual cooperation.