Cato’s Ted Galen Carpenter has a new study on what the drug war violence in Mexico means for the U.S.
Guy buys old strip club, spends $600,000 to convert it into a family-friendly steakhouse. State liquor board refuses to give a license, because of the prior owner. “It’s frustrating how inflexible the bureaucracy can be.” Yep.
“Anarchist hangout surrendering to market forces.”
England to make it a crime to photograph police.
D.C.’s CCTV system neither preventing crimes nor helping to solve them.
The Chinese good-times state executions traveling road show.
Minneosta DA finds that cop who broke into the wrong house in response to a domestic disturbance call, then fired five shots at the frightened owner before fleeing, acted “reasonably and responsibly.”
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 13th, 2009 at 9:10 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Alcohol, General Criminal Justice, General Drug War, Police Militarization.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
re: Crime to photograph police:
Rest assured, with the recent cases in the spotlight here in the U.S. getting poilceman charged with ACTUAL crimes due to video evidence, we will soon follow suit. We REALLY can’t allow policeman to be held accountable for their actions now can we? Soon we can get back to the good old days where the courts can once again, take a policeman’s word as gospel regardless of eyewitness accounts, etc. Ahhhhh the good old days….
“Just because we are anarchist doesn’t mean we don’t exist within a capitalist structure,” said David Combs, 25, as he worked the store’s cash register Saturday night. “If we want to have a social space, we have to pay rent. …”
Welcome back to reality, Mr. Combs.
It’s inevitable that they will eventually ban filming of cops in the U.S. as well and there is no doubt that a good portion of the population will be openly supportive of it and many more will simply be mute.
The last time we saw any meaningful interest in restraining governmental power by the political leadership of this country was back in the second half of the 18th century. “Meaningful” would be something more significant than the pathetic theater that accounts for what goes on in Washington these days.
Beginning even before the Constitution was ratified, U.S. citizens began to increasingly embrace government specifically for its authoritarian guidance and the government increasingly sees the populace as a disorderly mob that needs to be reined in. A marriage made in heaven.
It’s true that technology and wealth have given us more choices (which can be equated to more freedom), but we also have a lot more to fear from government because their power to lock up dissenters (which is what filming the cops usually equates to) is now almost limitless.
I think the battle over 1st Amendment issues like photographing cops and control of the internet is shaping up to be an interesting fight. Eventually the government will loose. It always does. But, the question is how far down the road to tyranny the government is willing to go to prevail. If the drug war (not to mention other examples from history) is any indication, things are going to get bad and some of us will pay for the kind of things we say on sites like theagitator.com. We have nothing to worry about in the near term, though. We’re safe as long as no one pays any attention to us.
Friedges claimed at the time the deputy did not identify himself as a deputy until after firing shots.
Backstrom concluded otherwise.
Oh, well, how fucking convenient for the Deputy.
At least Friedges won’t be getting Fredericked over it.
I’m not sure why Mr. Combs thinks there is anything within anarchistic principles that precludes the co-existence of capitalism. Anarchism is just a stateless society, not a communistic one.
Choice is not the same thing as freedom. It is not freedom that you can now go out and buy a plasma TV versus a HD TV or set up the equivalent entertainment system with a PC. That is merely a consequence of wealth and advancement. The right to choose there is simply one that exists in a vacuum created by the fact that no government has decided for you, and as such is no different from any other case where the government didn’t meddle in the past.
This is why many small-l libertarians who supported Ron Paul and conservatives generally think that magazines like Reason are batshit loco when they confuse the choice that wealth and technology give us with actual constitutional liberties as though the increase in the former outweighs the damage to the latter. On most issues today, you have to be a Pollyanna to believe that we aren’t fundamentally less free than we used to be.
What other kind of economic system could even exist in an anarchist state?
In fact, the wealth and technology that libertarians celebrate, while good, are natural opiates that cause people to accept more damage to their political system. If the GDP were halved tomorrow, most Americans would no longer have a rosy or apathetic view of their political system.
Seems like there was an article in reason magazine about that a few months ago. I wasn’t thinking so much in terms of HD TVs as the amount of leisure time we now have, because of technology, to pursue our own interests. Technology also increases freedom simply by increasing the efficiency of communications and information sharing. In any case, I think the article made a good case that we are better off today, freedom-wise, than we’ve ever been. My comment was simply acknowledging that perspective and making the point that it doesn’t change the fact that governmental power over our lives is always increasing.
It’s the “Wall Street” method of conducting business. Do a lousy job, operate negligently, screw everyone else….and they pay yourself a big bonus for doing the job in a lousy and negligent way.
Just another case of police in this country operating with total impunity no matter how inept and negligent they are about doing their jobs.
All you have to do is “be in fear for your life” and you are off the hook…..but that’s only if you are a police officer. Homeowners never fear for their lives when someone comes crashing through their doors…..that is just not possible.
In my reality, gun control is hitting what you shoot at.
Not only did this cop break into the wrong house, he can’t hit what he shoots at!
On those grounds alone he should lose his job.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m GLAD he missed. But what happens when he runs into a real bad guy? I guess justice.
Dave,
Anything is possible, and that’s the point. Some may want to set themselves up into a communistic society with common ownership of property. I doubt it will work at the city level, though it does work with small enough groups (think nuclear families). Others may want to set up some kind of state in a given geographic area. Others may want to live entirely isolated.
But most will probably live in a capitalistic society with dispute resolution companies and contract/credit rating companies and insurance companies and voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.
The moment you trade outside the anarchist/communistic unit, whether it’s a family or a nation, the free market is going to rule. It’s the reason why no country can be completely socialist unless they can be totally self sufficient (and even then there will be a black market). It’s also the reason why Lou Dobbs’ idea that our manufacturing industry can use only American labor and still make products that can compete on the world market is a bunch of crap.
Communism demands that people only take what they need or what’s “fair”, which defies human nature and is thereby doomed to failure. Hell, most married people have difficulty making it work.
I really feel sorry for anyone who lives in the UK. As much as the US is turning into a police state, they’ve been a totalitarian police state for decades.
That is hardly the only reason Dobbs is full of crap.
Dave,
Totally agreed. But the point is that those who wish to set up such communities are free to do so. I, too, think they’ll fail, and quickly, but it’s their business. It’s not only that it defies human nature, but that humans have different conceptions of what’s “fair” in return, and without prices, there will be endless bickering. To pull an example from domestic life, what is the exchange rate between loads of dishes and cleaning the bathroom? No one knows.
LOL! Yeah, it barely scratches the surface.
I used to belong to an anarchists club but the few times people showed up there was no agenda and nothing got done…
What most college students consider “anarchist” is basically the opposite of “without state”.
They are left-wing socially progressive people who think the government hasn’t done ENOUGH to create this equality they want. Ask the “anarchists” with the hoods over their faces about what should be done about health care, trade restrictions, environmental concerns, organic food, etc. Their answers, nearly without fail, will be more regulation, more money, more laws.
They only call themselves “anarchists” because they have their “corporation goggles” on. They can’t see the difference between a corporation and the government, so they think they the only way to get what they want is to destroy the government (corporations) so they can replace it with a socialist paradise.
Those anarchists are, in my mind, more confused and full of shit than the Republicans.
Libertarian oriented anarchists, on the other hand, do actually stand for anarchy. Anarchism has nothing to do with these over-privileged polititards who believe pretty much the opposite of what the word means. Whatever you think of the practical applications, anarchism a mighty noble concept.
Addressing all who think anarchy can exist as some sort of capitalist utopia: forget it. I’ll address thomasblair specifically to demonstrate why:
“Some may want to set themselves up into a communistic society with common ownership of property. I doubt it will work at the city level, though it does work with small enough groups (think nuclear families). Others may want to set up some kind of state in a given geographic area. Others may want to live entirely isolated.”
What do you suppose happens when the “some” who set themselves up as a communist group find that their system isn’t working out (or simply decide their system is right)? You think they’re going to realize what went wrong, and either right their course or just starve to death on principle? Same goes for anyone organizing in a state, or what have you. Unless (say) those that chose to organize their state did so as a republic and set up a military to repel those that decide their state is worth looting (sound familiar?), the course would be the same.
The idea of government is to establish a rule of law and to restrict the ability to initiate force (in other words, police to deal with citizens who initiate force against other citizens, the military to deal with those who initiate force from outside, and the courts to peacefully and impartially resolve differences that crop up in dealings between citizens). Obviously our government has gone far beyond that, but anarchy leads to the USSR a hell of a lot more quickly. Again, you don’t have to agree with me on the philosophy behind this, but just look at history.
I disagree Tim C.
Look at the Spanish Civil War. While the “anarchists” in question were POUM or Marxists, the movement carried a lot of weight and the voluntary nature of military service was a big selling point.
I’m not so sure that a centralized government has to exist for the voluntary protection of a free society by a group of individuals.
I will say this though, Market anarchy would depend several VERY wealthy individuals/corporations shouldering a LOT of the defense burden because the cost of effective weapon systems is … ridiculous.
Re: chinese death bus.
At the end of the article the author mentions organs are baing harvested from criminals after thay have been executed by lethal injection.
I have heard this claim several times and, personally, I don’t have a problem with it.
The only issue I have is, after the criminal has been injected with lethal dose of poisonous chemicals, are the organs still fit for transplant? Is China selling tainted prducts?
“I was just watching TV and then the guy comes banging on the door. Just sounds crazy. Just screaming open the door,” the home’s resident Justin Friedges said of the man who he thought was an intruder.
All right! It’s the new professionalism at work! Ring the doorbell? Knock on the door of a house like a normal person?
Fuck that!
Go up to a house where there are no sounds of struggle… no screaming, no yelling, etc… and start SCREAMING AND BANGING on the door like a wackjob! Then bust in, spray 5 rounds in the general direction of the first person you see (You know, to protect the children) then run back outside and call for backup.
(Voice of Chief Wiggums) That’s good work, boys!
“There is always going to be a level of contradiction when your ideology conflicts with the politics at large.”
Yes, and also when you’re an anarchist.
Anarchist hangout. HA!!!
They’re anarchists like George W. Bush was “limited government”. I wonder if any of them have even heard of Murray Rothbard?
“Just because we are anarchist doesn’t mean we don’t exist within a capitalist structure,” said David Combs, 25, as he worked the store’s cash register Saturday night. “If we want to have a social space, we have to pay rent. There is always going to be a level of contradiction when your ideology conflicts with the politics at large.”
I really don’t know enough about these people to comment, but there are some things I can try to extrapolate.
First, nice touch Radley. I know you posted this with me and other anarchists who post here in mind. Thanks for giving us our day in the sun.
Second, I don’t know anything about these people — even that they think of themselves as anarchists. It was the reporter who used the term, referring to anti-government and anti-globalization. By the quote above, they are probably anarcho-communists, if they are anarchic at all. I simply don’t know.
Third, if there is a contradiction, it is owed to these folks still choosing to live in society. I experience that contradiction every day. It’s hell coming to anarchism after you’ve made big life decisions like getting married and having children.
Anyway, I wish them luck and the best. Butler Shaffer wrote that freedom-loving people will find a way to be free. I believe that.
Thanks to Dave, Thomas, Omar, Tim C and The Chef for one of the best discussions of anarchism I’ve not participated in.
See, it’s this kind of shit that makes The Agitator such a cool place to hang!
I will have a go at Tim C:
“Addressing all who think anarchy can exist as some sort of capitalist utopia: forget it.”
Utopia? Heavens no! Less violent than the present system? Most likely. Concentrated power has a multiplying effect, so that World Wars would be impossible in an anarchic world where political power resides at the individual level, whereas these catastrophes only occur in the statist world where political power resides in the hands of a very few.
Thomas Blair wrote: “Some may want to set themselves up into a communistic society with common ownership of property. I doubt it will work at the city level, though it does work with small enough groups (think nuclear families). Others may want to set up some kind of state in a given geographic area. Others may want to live entirely isolated.”
To which Tim C replied, “What do you suppose happens when the “some” who set themselves up as a communist group find that their system isn’t working out (or simply decide their system is right)? You think they’re going to realize what went wrong, and either right their course or just starve to death on principle?”
There is actually a historic example in U.S. history. The Puritans, on landing in New England in 1620, set up a communist government with common ownership. Within 2 years, the colony was decimated from starvation. There was no incentive for anyone to grow any food if it was “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” In the third year, the leader Winthrop reorganized the colony to private property and the harvest was so succesful that year that the celebration feast we know as Thanksgiving had its inaugural.
That doesn’t mean that anyone would also starve to death on principle. I mean, the Donners were probably communists on the Eastern Sierra, but quickly became interested in private property in the passes, if you know what I mean!!!
I agree with Dave and Thomas who argue that communism is always doomed to failure, at least on a scale greater than that of blood family. So, those little anarchocommunist experiments will go the way of the Dodo, and what will be left is an anarchocapitalist society founded on individual responsibility and respect for private property.
“Same goes for anyone organizing in a state, or what have you. Unless (say) those that chose to organize their state did so as a republic and set up a military to repel those that decide their state is worth looting (sound familiar?), the course would be the same.”
I am not optimistic that any anarchist experiment could succeed given what I understand about human nature (laziness, weakness, corruption, fear, superstition, greediness, etc.). I fully expect the State to rise again even after an anarchist revolution. It appears to be built into the code. Specifically, it is death, and the threat of death, that is the essence of the State. Until death is conquered, it will be among us. That is the fall of man.
“The idea of government is to establish a rule of law and to restrict the ability to initiate force (in other words, police to deal with citizens who initiate force against other citizens, the military to deal with those who initiate force from outside, and the courts to peacefully and impartially resolve differences that crop up in dealings between citizens).”
In theory, you are correct. And as you note in the following paragraph, in practice reality is far different. The fallacy behind instituting government is in delegating individual responsibility for self-defense to an unaccountable outside agency. Another way of stating this is that fearful, weak individuals panic and yield control over their lives to the strong. It’s that simple.
“Obviously our government has gone far beyond that, but anarchy leads to the USSR a hell of a lot more quickly. Again, you don’t have to agree with me on the philosophy behind this, but just look at history.”
Anarchy could just as easily lead to the U.S., Nazi Germany, Sweden, China, or any other variety of State. Communism is probably the unlikeliest outcome because it is so fatally flawed. The USSR was an example of what supercat I believe calls “totalitarian anarchy,” where a select few are beholden to no one, and everyone else is beholden to the State. In fact, at root all States are totalitarian anarchies by that definition.
As for historic examples of anarchy leading to communism, I would be interested in a history lesson from you, Tim. The only successful anarchic societies that I know about were medieval Ireland and Iceland, and parts of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and North Carolina in the 1600s, and all of these were of obviously limited duration.
All in all a great discussion.
True anarchy is not chaos, anarchy is order.
#18 Wavemancali:
“I used to belong to an anarchists club but the few times people showed up there was no agenda and nothing got done…”
–Yup, you’ll have that at a meeting of anarchists. Thanks, I had a good chuckle at that one.
#19 Omar:
“Anarchism has nothing to do with these over-privileged polititards who believe pretty much the opposite of what the word means.”
–Well said. They remind me of modern conservatives who still claim that they stand for limited government.
#28 Cynical in CA:
“I fully expect the State to rise again even after an anarchist revolution. It appears to be built into the code. Specifically, it is death, and the threat of death, that is the essence of the State. Until death is conquered, it will be among us. That is the fall of man.”
Excellent point, Cynical. I don’t know that I’ve thought about matters of state in that exact way before. This part of your discussion reminds me of the views of Bertrand Russell (and others) on the concept of god. People think that their must be “something out there” protecting them and waiting for them after they die, so they find atheism to be shocking or evil. They just can’t believe that they are “alone” and that “nothing is out there.
To be honest, I think the case for government is much stronger than the case for a deity, but you still have an interesting point.
Thanks for the high praise, Helmut. I know I’ve struck gold if you appreciate an idea I tapped into.
“I think the case for government is much stronger than the case for a deity, but you still have an interesting point.”
Well, the case for government is airtight! I understand the inevitability of government — I just want it to be as dispersed as possible, down to the individual level.
Anarchism is self-responsibility. Delegating self-responsibility is living in denial.
Is it Frank Hummel? Or Himmler?
#31 Cynical:
No problem. I greatly appreciate that you value my opinion. As a liberal who is a libertarian “fellow traveler” (how’s that for irony!), I find it gratifying when I find common ground with people who have adopted a more radical libertarian philosophy.
Generally, I’m all for de-centralization, local control, voluntary action, and people “pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.” My concern is for those who were born without the benefit of these mythical boot straps (a reason I am interested in “basic income” ideas). This question of economic justice, coupled with my concerns over public safety and common defense are among the relatively few reasons I do not subscribe to a philosophy similar to your own. As always, thanks for the discussion.
[...] Tip: Radley Balko Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]