Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
I disagree that all cops are bad. I don't subscribe to the NAP. I am a minarchist who thinks that limited government is a preferable albeit not-perfect solution. Police, courts, military, etc.
Etc? What else. A true minarchist would say that ONLY those three things should be done by the government (BTW: I don't necessarily disagree with "government", but I disagree with the State.) Once you add the "etc." you're no longer really a minarchist but some hybrid between libertarianism and small-government conservatism.
That said, I'll answer on your own minarchist terms. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the police, courts, and defensive military (I assume you don't think preemptive war is justified)) can rightfully be run by the government, and that taxation to a level sufficient to fund these limited function is justified, and that police enforcing laws consistent with the NAP, and for whatever reason including the taxation scheme necessary to fund this, is justified.
Even if all of these things were true, I don't think this does anything for the modern American cop. It doesn't really make him any more justified. The only point at which the above scenario would differ from what I believe, in terms of the cop's responsibility (I don't believe that its necessarily unjustified to work for the government as long as the work itself isn't aggressive in nature, I view taking money from the government in much the same way that Walter Block does) is that in the above scenario, enforcing a minimal level of taxation is justified. The reality is that, the tax rates that cops are enforcing is way higher than that. The reality is that there are still all kinds of victimless crimes laws on the books that have nothing to do with taxation. Drug laws, gun control laws, laws against consensual sexual activities such as prostitution, anti-discrimination laws, laws against "price gouging", laws against disrespecting the american flag, and many, many more. Cops can't just turn a blind eye to all of these things, they'll get fired.
Mind you, I'm not saying all cops are equally bad. I'm not saying all cops should die. I'm not saying that there aren't likeable cops. I'm not saying there aren't cops who have the best of intentions. But I am saying that all cops are bad in at least some sense, because their careers require them to act aggressively, and that applies even if we assume that the necessary aggressions of a minimal state are not actually aggressive. I think that normally the best response to this is simply to be honest about it. Don't beat around the bush, don't pretend that its unjustified. Redistribution of wealth, except with consent or after conviction for an act of aggression, is theft. Locking someone up, except as punishment for a violent crime, is kidnapping. Killing someone, except in self-defense or as punishment for murder, and this includes cops who use "self-defense" after initiating an aggressive encounter, is murder. I'd be hesitant to use physical force, because the reprecussions are huge for doing so. I can see some cases where I could condone it (and I certainly wouldn't mention such cases on the internet) but normally I'd disagree with it even if it were justified.