What Recent Killings Of Police Are Not
On July 7, five police officers were killed by a sniper in Dallas who said that he was upset about recent police shootings and the Black Lives Matter movement, and stated he “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.” Other people have since attacked officers in Ballwin, Mo., Valdosta, Ga., Roswell, Ga., and St. Joseph, Mich.
When such events occur, the response from the political class and the establishment lapdog media is predictable. They will always side with government agents, regardless of merit. They will always condemn violence, regardless of their complicity in it. They will always use certain adjectives to describe such events, even though they do not fit upon closer examination. As such, let us delve into such an examination.
Senseless
In order to be senseless, an activity must be “without discernible meaning or purpose.” What exactly is senseless about either criminals or concerned citizens attacking government agents? A criminal may seek retaliation for earlier interference by government agents with his criminal activities, may want a greater challenge than victimizing a common person, may want to break fellow criminals out of police custody, or may want to scare government agents into doing less police work. A concerned citizen may have tried all available peaceful methods to right a wrong done by government agents and gotten nowhere, or may act out of a reasonable fear of being aggressed against. In many cases, the Dallas shooting included, the shooter will even inform people about the motive for the attack.
Although such attacks make sense, there are reasons for the establishment to lead people to think otherwise. For as long as such attacks remain senseless, they remain unpredictable, unpreventable, and inexplicable. This is exactly what those who wield state power want people to think because it provides them with an excuse to fulfill their political agendas which would otherwise be opposed and stopped. There is also the matter that the modern nation-state is an inherently left-wing institution, and an environment of random predation (or, at least, a popular belief that one exists) is more likely to produce support for leftist ideas.
Conversely, if people were to identify agency, meaning, and purpose concerning attacks on government agents, then they might come to understand the problem and find a solution. The problem, of course, is that government police do not restrict themselves to enforcing laws which prohibit attacking people or their property. This is because they are part of the state apparatus, which monopolizes initiatory force within a geographical area. Because the state has such a monopoly, it controls the nature and enforcement of the law within its domain. As such, if a legislature criminalizes an activity which harms no one or allows government agents to do that which would be criminal for anyone else to do, government police will enforce those laws just as they would enforce morally legitimate laws. When they do this, and they do so frequently, this makes them the aggressors. If enough people realize this, then they will take appropriate measures to defend themselves, up to and including the use of force. This is not in the interest of those who wield state power, as such a solution means the abolition of state power, and the implementation of said solution would endanger their well-being.
Cowardly
In order to be cowardly, an activity must be done “in a way that shows lack of courage” or “carried out against a person who is unable to retaliate.” Government agents are more likely to be armed than people of any other demographic and are more likely to have combat training. They also have a monopolistic criminal justice system on their side. The idea that they are unable to retaliate is risible at best. As such, we are left only with the question of whether attacking government agents shows a lack of courage. In order to be courageous, one must have “the ability to do something that frightens one” and “be ready to face and endure danger or pain.” Attacking an enemy who is almost certain to cause one’s death would be frightening to anyone but a fool, and doing so requires one to be ready to face and endure danger and pain. Therefore, we may completely dismiss the idea that people who attack government agents are cowardly.
Murder
In order to be murder, an activity must be “an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” Of course, killing government agents will almost always be unlawful by the state’s standards. But what about the higher standard of natural law? Natural law begins with self-ownership; that each person has a right to exclusive control over one’s body. This must be true because arguing against exclusive control over one’s body requires one to exert exclusive control over one’s body, thus creating a performative contradiction. Self-ownership is absolute except for the self-ownership of others; it is immoral to initiate interference with another person’s self-ownership. If someone does this, the person who is wrongfully interfered with may use force to defend against this interference. In libertarian circles, this is called the non-aggression axiom or non-aggression principle (although as a corollary of another principle, it is not an axiom; “non-aggression theorem” may be the most appropriate term). The amount of force that one may use to defend against aggression cannot be limited because placing a limit upon it means that might makes right, as an aggressor who wishes to get away with criminal behavior (and nearly all do) could simply escalate beyond the force limit to win a conflict with those who seek subjugation of and restitution from the aggressor.
As discussed above, the job of an agent of the state is to enforce all of the state’s laws, not just those which are in accordance with natural law or universal ethics. These laws are enforced by presenting a consistent threat to use as much force as necessary to stop a person who is known to be breaking the laws. In other words, they will escalate until a person submits, is killed, or kills them. Salaries for agents of the state are paid with money collected through taxation, which violates the non-aggression principle and private property rights by forcing people to turn over their money to the state or be subject to initiatory force. Thus, to become a government police officer is to choose to present a consistent threat to use as much force as necessary to stop a person who is known to be breaking immoral laws, or in other words, acting morally. Thus, killing them to defend innocent people from their predations is a defensive act from a natural law perspective.
In Fairness
While such attacks make sense, are not cowardly, and are not murder when viewed in a natural law perspective rather than a state law perspective, there are also some adjectives with positive connotations which are being used by sympathizers of the shootings, but which do not fit the circumstances. Let us explore these as well.
Heroic
Whether it be state apologists who have an apoplectic reaction to the above reasoning or ardent but autistic libertarians who appreciate force in self-defense against government but fail to recognize context, attacking and killing villains does not automatically make one a hero. Those who kill government agents in the name of Black Lives Matter generally have an endgame not of a free and stateless society, but of a dindutopia where criminal behavior goes unchallenged by either police or anyone else. It is necessary to recognize that the enemy of one’s enemy can still be an enemy, and that those who fight against villains can themselves be villains. Thus, when government agents and common criminals fight, it is best to pull for no one, hope for heavy losses on both sides, and recognize it as a battle without heroes.
Productive
In order to produce a positive result of forcing out the state and leaving those who seek liberty with only a private criminal element to defeat, there would have to be many more incidents like these. Resorting to force before there are sufficient people and resources available to defeat an enemy is likely only to embolden that enemy, increase public support for it, and result in the defeat and violent suppression of one’s uprising. And given the nature of the contemporary anti-police movements, this is not their goal.
<<Government Will Not Hold Government Accountable+++++++++++++++++++++++++An Overview Of Autistic Libertarianism>>