top of page

To Kill cops or not because they violate the NAP!

15 September 2014
It's a very controversial topic, and rightly so…until one considers the nonaggression principle in relation to the underlying truth about government.


I see the problem with killing cops, police, military, law enforcement officers, and such as they currently exist on government payrolls and only offer such advice on doing so as an absolutely, without question, last, last, last, last, last resort option.  I treat such a concept the way I respect others' rights to life in complete conjunction with the practice of nonaggression. 


Unfortunately, the status quo's understanding of government protects the contradictions of its typical moral stance on the initiation of aggression outside of the realm of self defense.  What is immoral and illegal for the individual is justifiable and somehow only negligibly immoral when done to achieve a noble goal; the ends justify the means without regard or respect for those innocently hurt or violated.


As far as keeping the peace and providing defense for the innocent such are absolutely necessary professions from the standpoint of protecting and enforcing property rights-starting with self ownership- and in conjunction with practicing nonaggression.  The problem, as I see it, lay in the means for which current law enforcement and kindred are compensated.  Taxation!


Taxation is the problem as it is built on the blatant and intentional, and far too often ignorant, rejection of the individual's consent to be governed at all.  Apply the principle of nonaggression here and all police, cops, law enforcement, and military personnel can be killed justly in time.


Do not mistake me for advocating such actions void of trying reason on an individual basis first!  I absolutely do not advocate for shooting first and asking questions later!  On a case by case basis only should each individual be revoked on his or her rights, up to and including their right to life based on his or her actions and from only those they aggress against outside of the realm of self defense.  There is plenty of room for reason in most cases I would argue.


However, it can be difficult to have time to reason when acts of aggression by law enforcement and kindred are so plentiful and destructive in order to earn their pay checks.  The loss of life has been, is, and will continue to be much regretted; but if the pay checks of these law enforcers and the like were earned by providing a voluntary services dependent on absolutely coercion free exchanges and commitments to providing an agreed upon service then the rules of the ball game change just enough to make these individuals respectable in terms of their previous definitions; mercenaries earning blood money.


While they remain mercenaries in varying degrees, they no longer are earning blood money.  At this point the law enforcers would be the same in terms of morality as anyone else concerning their choice of employment; generally speaking.


Unfortunately, at the end of the day any who chooses to violate the right of another to consent to be governed at all is the problem.  It typically makes little difference the reasons behind such a violation. 


"But what about a doomsday scenario?!  They could have nukes or something!?!  Don't be a fucking dumbass!"


The truth is that any scenario that arises where the fate of humanity is at stake because we refuse to violate a single individual's rights is rooted in the concept that such a scenario will absolutely play out in the same way in a world without government as it would with it.  Additionally, without government the ability of the individual to disperse is far greater.  That which might destroy a town won't destroy a nation.  That which might destroy a nation might not destroy the continent.  That which might destroy the continent might not destroy the planet and so on.  But with government we are often restricted in movement and by regulations in some part, and in fairness cost effective analysis in others, we are held captive in our nations and on the Earth.


Without government the ability of the individual to produce wealth that satisfies and improves the quality of life is unrestricted.  Without government and other justifications of unwarranted acts of aggression, humanity could very well be so deeply immersed into the universe that a single doomsday act to destroy Humanity would have to encompass all of the universe; a reserve big bang for example.


So any attempt to justify the perpetuation of law enforcement as it is concerning the practice of taxation is to retard, if not completely hinder, the progress of Humanity's expansion among the stars to escape the fate of dying on Earth.


Again, people with the courage to perform the services of police/peace keepers and military for the common defense and so on are much to be valued and morally so!  The idea in question is not with the willingness, per se, of these people to commit violence and aggressive acts and be killed for them because they are doing so with blood money, with taxed wealth. 


The idea in question is to understand the fact that the mentality of most cultures needs to be fundamentally transformed from government/taxation as a necessary evil to voluntary interactions protected by nonaggression with a strong emphasis on the teaching of property rights, starting with self ownership, leading to the idea of consent, and extending to wealth creation for starters.




Be sure to 'Like', Share, Recommend, Tweet, & Pin this article below!

Support liberty by purchasing a copy of Liberty Defined, an eBook by Jim Limber davis, here:

Or show extra support here!

bottom of page