Thin Blue Line
As all law enforcement swears an oath to uphold every law, even the unjust and unconstitutional and inhumane, they are all guilty of acts of aggression without first being the victims of an unwarranted act of aggression.
The lack of popular challenges against them as a means to keep them in line with the noblest spirit of their duty to 'protect & serve' the common defense of the citizen has granted law enforcement a disdainful attitude towards compassion. They appear to see their employment as automatically entitling them to heroic glory, greater respect than a 'common' man, and more.
They justify the means as long as it serves the ends. But what are the ends?
Taught to the general public it is supposed to be to nobly serve and protect the common defense. To the public their actions seem to relay the ends are to line the pockets of the government with wealth while their minds are filled with lustful thoughts of power over others through violence.
Law enforcement is no friend of freedom when the choice to peacefully disobey, peacefully challenge, and peacefully disagree is rejected with violence at any time; even to fund their employment and accept their services.
And there is always violence because the entire premise of government run law enforcement dictates the use of violence to rob the citizen in order to pay the enforcer. Taxation is theft.
Without the ability to peacefully decline what is labeled a 'service' such ceases to be a service and thus becomes a tribute to avoid the underlying threat; the choice to be violent in retaliation as self defense.
And if a man introduces violence before reason, even if the reason is to explain the intent to use violence to coerce conformity, then there is no peace in the introduction but as a veil to onlookers. And when onlookers are not privileged to the first moments of contact they only see who struck first.
This is why the Confederate firing on Fort Sumter made them out to be the villains; why a law enforcer crying about his gun being reached for makes their target a villain.
Those who demand power through coercion and violent destruction veiled in peace typically fall in the following categories:
-they do not wish their heavily invested pride to be challenged and recognized as poorly invested to be socially ridiculed.
-they are honestly nescient and do not know better
Either way, they don't know or refuse to understand the power of peace and the potential it has to offer. The up front investment in peace is far greater, the up keep minimal, the rewards far greater with true loyalty and increasing returns on investment. The upfront investment of violence and coercion is minimal with fear clouding judgment so quickly in the victim, the up keep incredibly tiring (since violence begets violence and fear is dissipated and requiring reapplication), and the rewards constantly diminishing in returns.
Violence, coercion, and fear require constant application to keep people in line. The break point is when people must be 'put down'. How is killing a source of income beneficial unless there are plenty being raised to replace those made examples of?
And how does this not show parallels of being a farm for some humans and run by other humans?
Find out more about my works here:
I base all of my posts on previous content I've created in two books and multiple audio programs.
Download and read for free Liberty Defined and Morality Defined here,
Listen to my Liberty & Morality Defined presents audio series here, http://bit.ly/2eT3ZxN
If you're a Star Wars fan and would like to start the journey into a realm of fantasy following a journey of struggle against two separate empires and a galaxy of souls lost in a conflict still raging on after 10 million years, download and read for free book one of my Hunter's Gambit series, Revelations here, http://bit.ly/2b1QoBh
And visit me on Facebook at http://www.FB.com/LibertyDefined
If you enjoy the work I create, please encourage more of it with one time or reoccurring donations here,