Sad, but true.
Here's hoping the cognitive dissonce becomes so painful that he has to quit.
You know, sometimes I wonder if we have this backwards: Good people join the police force in very small numbers and quickly get run out by the psychopaths, and hardcore libertarians absolutely refuse to join such an inherently corrupting job, leaving most of the openings for the worst of the worst. Everyone's corruptible of course, but the people we're leaving these positions to are guys who not only have no objective principles to measure themselves by, but guys who actively yearn for the ring of power more than anyone else.
If a whole bunch of people friendly to liberty suddenly became shrewd about this and flooded these positions and took control over departments, there wouldn't have to be so much cognitive dissonance, because they might have strength in numbers to refuse to follow orders or enforce bad laws. (That said, it would probably be more effective - and less corrupting - if there were any way to directly replace members of police commissions and such.) It's a shame that voluntaryists would be the best people we could possibly hope for, yet for the same reason, a rigid adherence to the NAP precludes them taking this path. As a "second best" option though, I hope that Constitutionalists and anti-federalists and such start mulling these ideas over.
Along the lines of the "ring of power," I'm reminded that the ring was not destroyed by Frodo leaving it in his house; he had to actually expose himself to its corruption to carry it into Mordor, or it would have been taken by the Nazgûl and delivered to Sauron. I get the sudden feeling that many of us here would simply say "no" and let the Nazgûl have it (at worst) or let the responsibility fall to someone else less likely to still want to destroy it at the end of their journey (at best). Right now, we're basically leaving it to Boromir and an occasional Faramir when we're lucky and a bunch of orcs and wraiths the rest of the time.

I'm not sure how I feel about someone saying "no" entirely, because I'm reminded of Gandalf refusing to take the ring for any purpose (even just to carry it like Frodo). He made this choice because he was wise and fearful of being corrupted, and yet by doing so he left the responsibility to someone who was less wise. Curiously, he supported Frodo's choice to take it, because he knew it was necessary even if he would not do it himself. Then again, the ring did corrupt Frodo in the end, and it could only be destroyed by accident, so that's worth considering too...as well as the fact that if it had corrupted Gandalf instead, that would have been a much bigger problem. Round and round in circles we go...Lord of the Rings has such deep applicability to this problem. Despite his disdain for deliberate allegory, I have trouble believing J.R.R. Tolkien did not have something like it specifically in mind on some level.
Anyway, the same observation goes for government positions in general, really. By avoiding them like the plague, we're implicitly allowing them to be uncontested bastions of abject and prideful statism. In a sense, we're letting government offices be closed communities of violent and controlling extremists who feed on each others' attitudes to no end and continue pushing the envelope. We already make exceptions for Congressional seats and such (liberty candidates), but I think there may be a case for using our influence to jam debris in the cogs of the machine too.