I’ve been listening to it all morning on the Sunday talk shows. Let’s get the obvious out of the way, here: Initiating violence against government officials and politicians is wrongheaded, immoral, futile, and counterproductive to any anti-government cause. As is encouraging or praising others who do. I ban anyone who engages in that kind of talk here.

While there have been situations in history (the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking) where initiating violence against government officials and politicians was justified, these conditions do not exist currently in this country.

In response to ‘matt w’ #27, but also more generally:

First, in this particular instance the gunman appears to be totally detached from reality. So that should end the story, but it doesn’t, of course — politicians use the occasion to imply that the attack was provoked by speech critical of government, in a disgustingly cynical attempt to silence that criticism.

It kills me every time I hear a statist (right or left, but usually left) attack free speech on the pretense that it might provoke the occasional extremist into acts of violence. Balko glaringly points out that the state not only condones violence by its own agencies, but actually approves and funds the tactics.

But that’s only the explicit portion of the violence. The rest of government is a gestapo of implied violence. For every law that is passed there is the explicit legal requirement of punishment for non-compliance… perhaps a fee. But does someone who disagrees with a law pay the fee because they agree with the punishment, or because it is the easiest way to avoid the next level of punishment… jail? And does someone go to jail because they agree with the punishment, or only because it is preferable to being killed? If the “criminal” says, “anh… I don’t agree with that law and I refuse to be punished for it,” does the government shrug and go on it’s merry way? No… ultimately it pursues non-conformists into their graves.

Think of that… Obama and his statist friends in congress passed a law legally requiring everyone to buy insurance. Those that don’t must pay a fine, but that’s only an option to let you avoid jail, which is only an option to let you avoid being killed. Their ultimate goal is to convince you to participate in the program even if you don’t agree with you, by making the consequences uncomfortable. Most people are going to choose compliance or the fee, even if they disagree, because it’s less painful than jail or death. But the implication is there.

[Now that's just an example. This isn't a rant against liberals or Democrats. It's a rant against statists, which can be applied to conservatives and Republicans just as well.]

So I slip into a subtle rage when a statist sycophant complains about anti-statist rhetoric supposedly provoking some anti-government violence. Statists live and breath violence on a daily basis. Their entire BEING is consumed with the use of state power to force people into compliance. Implied violence lies behind the veneer of “compassion” and “benevolence” of every state action. The explicit and implied violence behind state action is apparently so completely absorbed into the being of those who wield and support that power that they are able to completely compartmentalize it out of conscious mind. PARDON ME if I don’t feel an OUNCE of remorse for speaking out against the state. If the state wasn’t shitting all over people on a daily basis, I wouldn’t have to.

Now, dammit, I am NOT an anarchist, or some right-winger. I’m just a dude who believes in FREEDOM, and I won’t live in a f-ing world where politicians and their god-dammed sycophants get to run around using and threating violence with impunity, while at the same time criticizing (and threating the rights of) people who simply SPEAK in criticism of government.

Now, to people who love government and think it is a great source of good for solving all kinds of human problems, I submit to you: using coercive power, and the associated explicit and implicit violence, to achieve your goals is not “success,” it is not “progress,” it is not “good,” “right,” “just,” or benevolent in any sense. It is a complete capitulation to abject failure.

WHEW… I feel SO MUCH BETTER! Now that I was able to SPEAK, maybe I won’t go out and SHOOT someone!

[to anyone reading, that last comment was sarcasm aimed at making a point about speech being an important outlet... I'm not planning to, nor have I ever planned to, shoot anyone... fuck all that I even have to say that]

Al Franken tried the opposite approach – all the vitriol without the entertainment. It didn’t work for ratings, but he did manage to get a Senate seat out of it. So I guess it is down to priorities. If you want to make cash the honest way, you have to be entertaining. Otherwise you can use the power of the state to extract money for yourself by joining the halls of power.

I like the expectation they have (supported by the courts) that mere act of saying “police” creates a legal onus on the citizen as if they have full knowledge that the people assaulting their home are police and that the police have a legal right to be there and that it is criminal (and possibly deadly) to offer any resistance. That’s a pretty high, even ridiculous set of requirements.

Even if you were to understand the cacophony and pull “police” from the mayhem, is it really reasonable to assume that someone kicking in your back door yelling “police” means you no harm? (particularly if there are no accompanying police lights, sirens or uniforms)

I’ve seen commenters argue with passion that the word “police” across the back of an otherwise unremarkable dark blue windbreaker is unmistakable proof that a “criminal cop killer” knew he was dealing with the police. As if a person confronted with an armed intruder in a dark windbreaker has magical powers of x-ray vision that allow him to read the back of the intruders jacket. In fact, these “uniforms” are specifically designed to appear “not police” from the front, with “police” visible from the back. This is to allow stealth in approaching the target while preventing mistaken friendly fire from behind. This intentional double-think on the part of our leaders is appalling.

Once again I put the call out to anyone who has authority in these situations: do not put your people or the citizenry into positions where violence is likely unless there are no other alternatives. It is stupid and wasteful. These drug raids are the definitive example of counterproductive use of force. In almost every case a little better planning would have resulted in a search without the use of violent entry.

The odds of something going wrong in any one raid are extremely low – so they continually get away with it. But it is exactly akin to drunk driving: Just because you manage to make it home without wrecking “every time” (so far) doesn’t mean it is a safe or wise practice.

It’s a wonder anyone ever figures out it’s the police.

That makes as much sense as saying that an abortion clinic bomber whose favorite book is the Koran was clearly influenced by radical Christian fundamentalism…

It’s like I always say, Politician X feels s/he does not have to justify statements and data to people, uses magical Metrics Y to measure success of Item Z, measures it at 1%, and concludes that 100x more effort/money/liberty must be sacrificed to achieve 100% success for Item Z. Surely you can’t dispute the math.