Guest Post: Law Enforcement is Not Your Friend

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

Across the West, instances of abuse of authority by domestic police forces are becoming more prevalent.  Two weeks ago, two police officers in my hometown accosted my brother as he walked back to his car after purchasing a six pack of beer.  The officers, who thought my brother was up to no good because he parked a few blocks from a bar, questioned him for a full half hour.  All the while, they found it necessary to remind him repeatedly that “he was in trouble” and that the situation was “serious.”  After my brother asked numerous times what he had done and if he was under arrest, the two officers finally let him go.  Though he was never charged with a crime, it was implied that he wasn’t free to leave.  During the back-and-forth, one officer claimed that he and his fellow officers kept the town safe through such tactics like assuming everyone is a criminal.  The sad part is, the officer likely believed his own story.

Situations of police arrogance and abuse like this are now commonplace in many Western countries and especially the United States.  After a decade of civil liberties systematically being slaughtered and the rights of foreigners being stripped away in the name of “fighting terrorism,” even the most egregious acts of crushing natural rights hardly draw any outcry from the greater public.  Just last week on August 16, 2012, former Marine Brandon Raub was forcibly taken from his home in Chesterfield Country, Virginia and is currently being held against his will in a psychiatric hospital.  His alleged crime he has yet to be charged for?  Questioning the federal government’s true motive in all its dealings on his private Facebook page.  Despite having no criminal record and no history of mental health illness, Raub was effectively kidnapped from his home in a coordinated effort by FBI officials, Secret Service agents, and local police.  The pickup hardly differs from the Gestapo tactics used in communist Russia to suppress political dissent.  The arresting officials claim that Raub was not under arrest despite the fact that he was in shackled handcuffs and was not free to return home.  FBI spokeswoman Dee Rybiski assured the Associated Press that many of Raub’s writing were “threatening” and that they had received “complaints” over the violent rhetoric.  But according to The New American, nowhere in Raub’s writing was violent revolution ever suggested.  Thankfully, a judge recently ordered the release of Raub as there was no legal basis to hold him involuntarily.

While the Brandon Raub affair is horrendous, arrest and detainment of political dissent is nothing new to the United States.  From John Adams’ signing of the Alien and Sedition Act  to Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and imprisoning political opponents and those who spoke out against the Civil War, freedom of speech and peaceful protest have never been regarded as sacrosanct.  Should law enforcement feel the need to keep someone against their will, there is little to stand in their way.  And this behavior is not unique to the United States.

In Canada, the home of “peace, order, and good government,” the people’s faith in the goodness of monopolized authority is being challenged.  Last spring after many provincial governments threatened tuition hikes, university students took to the streets in protest.  Police brutality ended up showing its ugly head as riot police arrested as many as 85 protestors.  These students, who naively saw themselves as entitled to a college education paid for by pilfered funds, were served a taste of what government really looks like.  To quote H.L. Mencken, the students believed in the sanctity of democracy and got it “good and hard” as they witnessed the truth that government amounts to no more than a riot shield, a billy club, and the trigger of a gun.  In Europe, austerity measures have evoked similar objection as many nonviolent protests have been upended by police crackdowns.  Though the anti-austerity crowd generally wants their perspective governments to shower them with entitlement benefits, their childlike desire of something for nothing is not deserving of a tax-funded bludgeoning.

As the state grows in size and scope of authority so must its enforcement apparatus.  The forced taking and distributing of wealth is not a trait found in a peaceful society.  With every ratcheting up of government intervention into civil life comes growth in the police state.  The perpetual War on Terror has only exacerbated this trend as many Americans have shamefully allowed for their inner-most private moments to be violated in the name of feeling safe.  Likewise, prominent governments the world over have bowed down to America hegemony and the sheer arrogance through which a policy of extra-judicial murder and the silencing of criticism is conducted.  As LRC columnist and author Fred Reed explains:

People speak of the onrush of the police state. I think that many do not understand how fast it comes, or how thorough it will be.

The political framework falls rapidly into place. Few or no safeguards exist, and probably few are possible. A growing authoritarianism    rapidly erodes what protections we had. The courts allow random searches of passengers of trains and subways without probable cause. Warrantless tapping of personal communications is rampant, or done with secret warrants from a secret federal judge. TSA has Viper squads that stop cars at random for searches. In many places it is against the law to video the police, who everywhere become more militarized and less accountable. For practical purposes, citizens have no recourse.

It’s quite easy to understand why law enforcement, as a vital enforcement arm of government, uses its authority so recklessly and with little impunity.  The state, as anarcho-capitalist philosopher Hans-Herman Hoppe defines it, acts as “the final arbiter and judge in every case of interpersonal conflict.”  Whatever issue a citizen has with an enforcer of government law, it must be heard and dealt with by another state official; thereby making bias inevitable.  Should a judge declare whatever claim you make against the police as void, the process comes to an end.  There is no appeal to a competing authority.  Law, instead of being concrete and based on moral principles, is bent and formed to fit whatever the enforcers in the state deem necessary.  Instead of protecting person and property, law enforcement seeks to protect itself and the power it has accumulated.  In other words, “protect and serve” does not apply to society but rather to their employer known as the state.

Questioning of monopolized, violent, and easily corruptible authority is not a radical stance by any means.  Believing that society is incapable of functioning without living under a gun is not only a radical view but also one that hides a hatred of humanity.  It is a view based on the ideal that only might makes right and that peace and liberty are impossible conditions for man to prosper in.

The state’s monopoly on violence ultimately acts as a hindrance to social cooperation and rising living standards.  It is regressive in the sense that monopolies have no incentive to meet the needs of consumers.  Government law enforcement is legalized force shielded by the threat of even more force.  There is little accountability or repercussion for police brutality except in some extreme cases.  If a victim is unable to illicit support from a media establishment intoxicated with its position as the government’s court reporter, misdeeds go unpunished.  Perpetrators are then more emboldened to commit the same, and even worse, acts in the future.

In the end, law enforcement in its current form should not be looked to as a friend of peace but merely as another branch of the state’s institutionalized thuggery.  There is little justice to be had if one group of individuals operates outside the rule of proper and moral law.  Freedom comes not from a badge and gun but of a recognition that man has an absolute right to not be coerced against his wishes.  Anything else amounts to repression of body and spirit with social degeneration as the final outcome.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

This article itself is a false flag, because the fucking author wants to rule the world himself.

Xibalba's picture


<-- Or good business?  



The USSA has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the prison population....


you decide. 

Pladizow's picture

Your brother should have asked:

1. Are you detaining me or am I free to go?

and not answered any questions!

American Obedience Training Botchez!

Dr Benway's picture

That sort of approach costs time because they can hassle and detain you on any number of pretexts and get away with it.

On topic, this article is just idiotic. Law enforcement should be a government monopoly and not governed by free market principles and money.

I am seriously starting to think the author is a bankster infiltrator of ZH. Letting banskters have their own private police forces and courts? Fuck you Ludwig Von Mises institute and the horse you rode in on.

Colombian Gringo's picture

The police are already privatized. Their job is to protect the elites and will gladly smash in your teeth for a paycheck.  95% of the time, during an assault, there are no police present to help you. But just try walking up to GS in NY and take pictures. New Yorks finest are on you like brown on shit.

Spirit Of Truth's picture

I had my apartment broken into and ransacked once for telling the truth like I just did again a few days ago here:

The "authorities" don't want the truth to be told.

Element's picture

Hang on, this article's got it all wrong, the State is the good guy, and the citizens are the baddies!  Scheesh!  I thought everyone knew that.

- Bomber Barry

Michael's picture


How do you say in Arabic, "A Base Member From The Base"?

Your a genius if you can answer this question.

Element's picture




Wot did I win?

SWRichmond's picture

The state’s monopoly on violence ultimately acts as a hindrance to social cooperation and rising living standards.

This is the simplest, and most important-to-make point.  Voluntary cooperation leads to the unleasing of human creativity, and a rising tide floats all boats.  As the unwelcome and violent state forces its way into ever-more human interactions, cooperation and wealth creation break down.  As they have.

BigJim's picture

@James Miller: Law Enforcement is Not Your Friend. Posted: 08/23/2012 21:12

@LetThemEatRand: This article itself is a false flag, because the fucking author wants to rule the world himself. Posted: 08/23/2012 21:14

Hmmm, less than two minutes to absorb the contents of a 1353 word article, and reply, as well! No stalking here, then.

What's wrong girlfriend? Did Jimmy M dump you for poor personal hygiene? Hell hath no fury, etc, eh?

BigJim's picture

Much as I enjoy Miller's polemics, he always throws the baby out with the bathwater on this subject. Exactly how are we to resolve conflicts without some kind of final arbiter? When two sides fundamentally disagree (or act in bad faith) how will they come to an agreement with regards to who should settle the dispute in the first place? I genuinely don't see how we can function without a monopolist of force.

The problem is when that monopolist takes its direction from the other monopolist - the government.

It seems to me that a monopolist police force is necessary... what is not necessary (or desirable) is that they take orders from central government.

People have asked how we can have a 'private' police force that wouldn't just serve the interests of the wealthy (like they're not doing that now, chuckle).

How about the local populace vote how much revenue their local police earn, and also assign bonuses according to the number of crimes that are not only not commited, but differing amounts for what crimes are not committed. So for instance, the local populace can decide it will only budget $1,000 a year to avoid having pot smokers loitering on the street, but $1,000,000 to avoid rapes, $2,000,000 to avoid child murders, etc.

Philosopher Jamie Whyte discussed this in greater detail here:

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture



How do you say in Arabic, "A Base Member From The Base"?

Well, however it is said, it's going to contain the words "al qaida".

Your a genius if you can answer this question.

Maybe so, but even a dumb hick like me knows that qaida is Arabic for base.

onthesquare's picture

the first casualty of war, is the truth.

Vooter's picture

Which is why 9/11 was funny...

dbomb12's picture

We could now address them as the new  Schutzstaffel

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

@Columbian Gringo - by and large you are correct.  However, we still have what's left of the judiciary to counterbalance police brutality.  I humbly suggest that we carefully choose whom we wish to be elected to judicial posts in each and every election.  Perhaps these local, state and federal elections are more important to the safety, security, and well being of the USA than the "blue vs. red, pepsi vs. coca-cola, dem vs. republican" false choice elections. 

Judges can and sometimes, although rarely, do rule in favor of victims of police brutalty.  I have even heard rumors of anecdotal reports of local and/or state Judges ruling in favor of victims of the TBTF banks (WOW, imagine that!), although I have zero personal direct knowledge of said events.  

Personally, I will vote for such Judges who uphold the Constitution of the USA, and those who uphold the State's Constitution in which I have the right to vote, and I encourage all Americans to do the same.  However, I admit I've been doing my research and haven't really found any judge (this comment is meant to include Attorney General, et al in the Judiciary) that I'm a big fan of yet.  BUT, maybe if we focus on judges, then perhaps some better candidates for election in the Judicial Branch may come about? 

I guess what I am trying to say is that as far as my political donations, time, energy, ZH comments, and volunteer efforts are concerned, F*ck the upcoming Presidential elections because our last line of defense is local and state law (I think it is safe to say that federal law is pretty much out the door at this point in time)....and that is where my time, effort, and money should be spent. 

Sean7k's picture

There is a better solution. Our greatest judicial protection lies in the jury system. Courts still require a jury for conviction in most cases. The people can decide to: one, convict police of wrongful actions and two, to determine innocence- REGARDLESS OF THE STATE'S ARGUMENTS.

Granted, the State will then eliminate juries or create professional jurors, but then, that is just another sign of where we are, yes?

Fred C Dobbs's picture

Everyone should just stop convicting people of made up crimes while on jury duty.  Vote not guilty.  It is your last freedom so use it.  



Ricky Bobby's picture

Her Dr. bootlicker I hear the TSA is hiring. 

JLee2027's picture

The Thuggery will continue as long as the money holds out. But as we know, the currency is dying. The collapse will either turn America into a police state or restore our liberties. This is a good time to pray.

Dr Benway's picture

Are you functionally retarded? FYI, I am probably as anti-excessive-police-power and anti-police-brutality and anti-police-state as they come.


I am also a realist.


Privatized law enforcement and courts would lead to hell. Letting rich people have their own police forces and courts would entail hell on earth. Ludwig von Mises institute is trying to create hell. 

CompassionateFascist's picture

They already do: it's called the Z.O.G.

iinthesky's picture

dr benway... You sir are an asshole of epic proportions or a useful idiot. I have never said anything of the sort to anyone commenting on ZH but you.

Dr Benway's picture

Yes, because I do not advocate anarchy like Somalia, I am surely the fool here.


Since we are doing ad hominem, let me say you are a simpleton and an extremist and a fucking idiot.


You fucking Libertardian, you pray to your chosen idol and are as dogmatic as those you oppose. For you "free markets" is the panacea, the solution to any possible problem. You are religious and have abandoned reason, you only superficially credit it like the disgusting hypocrite you are.


Please explain to me how it would be a good thing if law enforcement and courts and laws were the subject of free market principles and money? Tell me how it would be good if rich people could have their own courts and penal systems and law enforcement?

Bay of Pigs's picture

Ah, the "Somalia" argument. All downhill from there...LOL.



AnAnonymous's picture

Yep, Somalians are negroes. That tells it all.

Signed: an American.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous said:

Yep, Somalians are negroes. That tells it all.

Signed: an American.

Nice try at offuscation, Little Bigot Man, but you've already made clear your contempt for negroes.

AnAnonymous's picture

De offuscation actually.

'Americans' think that what is happening in Somalia cant happen to them. For the simple reason Somalia is peopled with negroes.
And them' Americans' are civilized people. While negroes are negroes.

As to contempt for negroes, already answer to it. Better to ask one 'American' for that type of feeling.

Been that way from 'Americans' since 1776,July,4th... Longest hatred, contempt hold by 'Americans'...

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous, evasive and offuscative, said:

As to contempt for negroes, already answer to it. Better to ask one 'American' for that type of feeling.

Yes, you did indeed answer to it:

Logics of lowest level. Even understood by negroes, so to tell how lowest level it is...

Running away from your own words now? Your scurrying rodent nature is eternal.

Poor Grogman's picture

Yep Tibetans are Chinese
Signed an anoyingmouse

Sean7k's picture

This is Max with a new name. You can always identify Max by his use of the Somalia argument. This degrades to libertarian insults. What we really need are better trolls. Ones that can make well reasoned arguments to test our skills, but unfortunately we get Max. 

The worse part is the knowing that the Elites feel that a Max is all that is necessary to convince the population. Other comment areas would appear to reinforce this reality- we just are not taken seriously as a people. 

NidStyles's picture

Banskster infiltrator? You do realize what site you're on, right? 

AldousHuxley's picture

what can trump police thugs is ex-military experienced vets.


once vets take the side of the people, it is all over.


police never were on the right side of revolutions. ask african americans.

toady's picture

That's why I hang out at the VFW & American Legion. Good friends to have in the near future.

Unfortunately, most of the GW1 & GW2 guys look like they'll be on the other side...

otto skorzeny's picture

most vets are either newly minted cops or just burned out alchies who play vid games all day and contemplate suicide. alot of HR people I talk to say their companies don't hire vets  because they are all PTSDed or drugged out.

JimBowie1958's picture

Yeah, vets are good enough to fight and bleed for our freedoms, but too risky to earn a paycheck.

What a bunch of unfuckinggrateful bastards.

If the proverbial fodder truly does hit the fan and the whole world unglues into little fiefdoms because no government has the resources to pull them back to a center again, these vets will help us all to put the thieves and ingrates where they belong.

Freewheelin Franklin's picture

what can trump police thugs is ex-military experienced vets.


Many police are ex-military vets.

sessinpo's picture

Thousand up arrows for you.


I've noticed AldousHuxley frequent liberal posts that display total ignorance from reality. But then I love picking on liberals which isn't really fair to fight mentality ill/challenged persons.

Of also note is how very few Vets are speaking out against how the government is destroying the constitution. Many are just to afraid or don't understand the constitution themselves. They just take orders. The few that do speak out get destroyed by the MSM and the government.

JeffB's picture

Look at the followup YouTube clip of what they did to him at another checkpoint:

Of course, he may make out ok on the lawsuits, but that's always a risk too.


JeffB's picture

The case against the pastor was tried and he was found not guilty.

That doesn't necessarily make up for having his face smashed into brtoken glass, in the car, against the door, and with a foot grinding his face into the asphallt. Not to mention being tasered multiple times, mocked and ridiculed as they take their time hauling him to the hospital to be stitched up, refusing to let him go to the bathroom etc.

If I wasn't convicted but had to pay significant legal fees to remain free (after spending some time in jail in another city), while I recover with multiple stitches in my face, I doubt I'd feel like thumping my chest as though I taught them some sort of lesson.


Plata con Carne's picture

The way this guy handled a traffic stop gave me a chuckle...