Just saw your response now. Thanks. One challenge I would offer to you, in light of the problem you have identified with the public perception of anarchism, is to help correct it. In dialogues like the one we are having, you do a fantastic job of that. However, at other times, I would say that you are more dismissive of people who take a less palatable tone with you. And maybe if that is deserved. But, if part of your goal is to better advocate on behalf of your beliefs (which we should all strive for), then education is a big part of that. You’ll naturally meet people who are going to think what they’re going to think, regardless of what the truth is. C’est la vie. But there are people who may be genuinely misinformed/uninformed or people who otherwise are willing to listen. They may not necessarily come to your side of the table, but they may (as I have) learn something that allows them to better understand/appreciate your ideology. For myself, posters like yourself and others out there have helped me learn that “anarchy” is a political ideology/philosophy, and isn’t just a term to throw around when watching “V for Vendetta”. Obviously, part of the problem is how self-identified anarchists have bastardized the term (The Anarchist’s Cookbook, for instance), but that is another fight for another day.

Good day to you, sir.

Thanks for responding. First, I accidently gave you a -1. Sorry about that. I guess I have fat fingers ;)

Actually I have considered working in the area of private investigation. At the moment I am working in healthcare security, and I have obtained training in and out of work that could make that a viable option in the future. While working as a non-sworn officer, I have enjoyed the fact that I don’t have to be a drug warrior, or fill other roles that public police are expected to fill. I am simply here to protect patients, visitors, staff, and campus property. The pay isn’t super, but oh well. We aren’t government police, after all.

Thank you for the list of authors/theorists, and thanks for challenging me. I will try to do some research in the near future. Have a good weekend.

This is not a decision I took lightly. Many of these revelations have been hard to take. I devoted much of my time to studying criminal justice issues, and I will continue to do so even if I don’t go into a public sector career. In the end, law enforcement turned on me, I didn’t turn on it.

Not false, exactly, but it is dishonest to argue against self-proclaimed anarchists as if they’re using the common-usage definition when they describe their own views. Especially when they lay out what they mean by anarchy/anarchism over and over and over and over…

“Sorry to hear you feel the blog has become inhospitable. You and I have had some productive conversatiosn on the topic of anarchism vs. limited government.”

Well, not totally inhospitable. Everyone has bad days, Helmut, I’ll bounce back. I have always relished our exchanges, especially since you are a limited government proponent with, it appears to me, one foot out of the door.

“One thing I feel compelled to mention to you before I go is that I have basically decided to stop looking at public sector law enforcement jobs at this point.”

One must make decisions for oneself, and I wonder if you could pursue work as a private-sector detective?

“The Agitator and other news sources have led me to the decision that the system is broken and I simply would not fit in.”

One never knows exactly how it would play out, but knowing oneself is the most important thing in the world. My belief about statist systems is that the person who sets out to change the system will wind up changed by it. Far better to abandon the State and find a different way. I think you made a good decision.

“I am not an anarchist, but I have principles that I believe would be compromised if I opted to continue looking at LEO jobs. I will be more open-minded about the private sector from this point on.”

You are not an anarchist … yet. ;-)

“Would you recommend any books that have influenced your views on how “policing” should be handled in our society. I am aware of David Friedman and Rothbard, of course, but perhaps you could give me some more ideas. Take care.”

I can list the authors I have read, but not all get specific about how systems would be managed in an anarchic society (that’s kind of the point, systems would evolve without central direction). Butler Shaffer, John Hasnas, Delmar England, Roy A. Childs, Robert LeFevre, Stefan Molyneux, Albert Jay Nock, Herbert Spencer, Lysander Spooner, Sheldon Richman … the list goes on and on. Just about any anarchist site will have a library of links.

The DRO, or dispute resolution organization, is probably the most common solution to policing in an anarchic society. English common law basically evolved from competing judicial systems (crown courts, merchant courts, religious courts, etc.). There is historical precedent.

It has been interesting to see how some of us have evolved on this site — I don’t know if it’s my own bias, but I sense the approach of a heightened awareness of the rot within Western society based on the anecdotes and news stories of greater resistance to the State. Needless to say, I find the trend heartening. Great to exchange ideas with you as always Helmut, thanks.

Thanks for taking the time to respond BSK.

“I don’t know exactly all the discussions you’ve gotten into with regards to anarchism, but I don’t think it’s fair to consider legitimate criticism or disagreement with anarchism or its tenets can necessarily be defined as “anti-anarchism”.”

Honest discussion of non-violent human interaction is completely legitimate BSK. I object to those who misconstrue anarchism by conveniently using the common-usage definition to demonize their opponent. The common-usage definition of anarchism is outright false. Anarchism is defined by non-violence, or at least the non-initiation of violence with defensive violence permissible under specific conditions. I am finding more and more on this site that rational discussion of anarchism properly defined is giving way to demonization by association with violent “totalitarian anarchists,” to use a phrase popularized by another commentor here.

“In a very simplistic rendering, I suppose you can offer a black/white duality, but it’s a bit intellectually dishonest.”

I really don’t think so, BSK. Anarchism means the non-initiation of violence. The State is defined by its self-enforced monopoly on the initiation of violence. That is as black/white as it comes. The world can be binary, on or off, 0 or 1. Logic depends on that principle.

“Maybe you have come up against legitimate anti-anarchists here, but barring outright animosity or antagonism, even those ideas ought to be entertained as part of the public discourse.”

Very true, and I agree wholeheartedly, and I will continue to participate in discussions with these individuals.

“I’m new to the site and while I probably disagree with you more than I agree, I do value your perspective and hope you can contribute to the discussion. You may take a few arrows along the way, but if considered thoughtfully, they will only lead you to a stronger position (even if they move you the least bit away from anarchism).”

Very well put, BSK. What you wrote there means a lot to me. Your comments are thought-provoking as well and I look forward to exploring this and other subjects with you in the future.

Is there a good way to work out how common the problems we often describe here really are? News reporting always magnifies the rare horrible events, and that’s definitely true of Radley’s reporting on wrong-door raids where they shoot the dog, the homeowner, two game wardens, and a cow.

Do you feel like you’ve got a good handle on how common the coverups, “blue wall of silence,” etc., are, relative to the positive stuff that policemen also do (like arresting robbers and drunk drivers)?

I don’t know exactly all the discussions you’ve gotten into with regards to anarchism, but I don’t think it’s fair to consider legitimate criticism or disagreement with anarchism or its tenets can necessarily be defined as “anti-anarchism”. In a very simplistic rendering, I suppose you can offer a black/white duality, but it’s a bit intellectually dishonest. Maybe you have come up against legitimate anti-anarchists here, but barring outright animosity or antagonism, even those ideas ought to be entertained as part of the public discourse. I’m new to the site and while I probably disagree with you more than I agree, I do value your perspective and hope you can contribute to the discussion. You may take a few arrows along the way, but if considered thoughtfully, they will only lead you to a stronger position (even if they move you the least bit away from anarchism).

One thing I feel compelled to mention to you before I go is that I have basically decided to stop looking at public sector law enforcement jobs at this point. The Agitator and other news sources have led me to the decision that the system is broken and I simply would not fit in. I am not an anarchist, but I have principles that I believe would be compromised if I opted to continue looking at LEO jobs. I will be more open-minded about the private sector from this point on.

Would you recommend any books that have influenced your views on how “policing” should be handled in our society. I am aware of David Friedman and Rothbard, of course, but perhaps you could give me some more ideas. Take care.

cut/copy paste.

Washington State drug agents seize marijuana legalization petitions

I love how they use the largest mass conversions they can come up with to make it sound scary…

1000grams of Marijuana seized! OMG thats over 2 pounds!!

Yeah, imaginary events rarely do.