Sane people change systems with ideas, not by murdering people

By David McElroy · June 10, 2014

Every fringe movement attracts crazy people. Libertarians are no exception. The married couple who murdered two police officers and another person in Las Vegas over the weekend are a perfect example. They’re not people to embrace or defend. They’re nuts whose actions damage the cause of individual freedom.

I’ve written a couple of times before about people I don’t want to be associated with, such as conspiracy cranks with no interest in facts and those who are just plain bigots. There are a lot of very intelligent, sane, interesting and responsible people who have come to libertarian or anarchist positions for moral reasons, but there are also people such as Jerad Miller and Amanda Miller who are mentally unstable people who are looking for an outlet for their anger at the world.

Many of us want to change the world. Many of us see a coercive system of government as immoral and standing in the way of individuals being free to live under the rules they might voluntarily choose. But changing the world in a positive way is about influencing hearts and minds through art, ideas and culture, not about killing people and tearing down institutions. You don’t change the world by adopting the tactics of an oppressor.

In the last couple of days, I’ve seen some libertarians and anarchists defending the Millers’ actions. I’ve seen others who won’t quite defend their murders, but they say the killings weren’t murder and that killing police is justified simply because they are the people who enforce the immoral rules of the state. And I’ve seen a new tack on Tuesday in which some people are trying really hard to say the Millers were government plants or maybe they didn’t really exist. I’ve been really surprised at some of the denial I’ve seen.

Many people are willing to consider what you have to say as long as you’re discussing ideas and making a moral and pragmatic case for freedom. But killing people who aren’t threatening you at the moment is a dividing line between discussion and thuggery. Nobody takes you seriously once you cross this line. Once you cross that line, you also make it very difficult for others to hear anyone with a vaguely similar message. And you no longer have any moral authority once you’ve passed that line.

Many libertarians strongly condemned the actions of the Millers when the news started coming out. When I posted something about it on my Facebook page Monday morning, I had a lot of strong feedback agreeing with my view that the murderers should be strongly rejected. I think many of those people were as surprised as I was at the ambivalence and tacit support that some other people were giving to the murders.

It seems as though the support and lack of condemnation centers around the idea that because police support the work of the coercive state, they’re automatically the enemy and make themselves legitimate targets just by becoming cops.

I detest much of what’s going on in police culture today and I strenuously object to many of the immoral and anti-individualist laws that police enforce, but I think it’s ridiculous to believe that murdering random police officers is moral or pragmatic. We need people to enforce laws and protect us from criminals. There’s a serious problem today because a good portion of police have become a different breed of criminal — and some of the laws they enforce are evil — but the function of policing is one we need. There’s just a serious question about who gets to make the rules and who gets to choose how the rules are enforced in a given place.

I’ve said many times that I don’t want a “one size fits all” system. For those who want to live under the current system, I have no objection to that — as long as they’re willing to tolerate those of us who want out taking our land and wealth away from their control. I have no objection to people living under any system they choose, as long as it’s voluntary for the people living under it. I want it recognized that anyone can opt out of the existing system if he chooses — to live as a lone wolf if he pleases or to join with other people to put their land together to establish cities under the rules they voluntarily agree to.

The fact that we are not allowed to withdraw from this coercive system is morally wrong. The fact that another system exists for those who want another system is perfectly acceptable.

Most people today are living quite voluntarily and happily in a system that I believe is wrong. Most people would be scared to death by the kind of fragmentation that I’m talking about. They want a coercive government to enforce one way for everyone. If they had a choice of living under the existing system or in one of my proposed independent cities with its own rules, most of them would prefer to stick with what they’re familiar with.

I think they’re mistaken not to see the existing system as the moral and pragmatic evil that I see it as. But I’m not going to impose my views on them. I can’t. And even if I could, it would be wrong for me to tear down the system that most people choose. It’s not my business to choose for them. I don’t want to change their world. I only insist that their system has no right to hold me and my property — and that of others who want to withdraw. I’m saying the system has no right to stop us from withdrawing. Others have every right to continue living with their system as long as it doesn’t coerce those who want to withdraw.

If you think it’s your job or your right to destroy the state everywhere and impose your rules on the entire world, you’re no better than the people who are currently imposing their rules on us. It’s not our right to destroy the system that they want to live under — and it’s murder to kill police who work for that system.

We need a legal framework within which we can withdraw our property and ourselves from the state’s control, but that doesn’t mean we need to destroy the system that other people voluntarily want.

There are a lot of people today who are angry at government for a variety of reasons. I’m among them. I see its control over me as immoral. I want to figure out a way to separate myself from that system, but murdering police will only harden public and political attitudes against anyone with such “radical” desires.

Murdering people in the name of individual freedom is immoral and it’s counterproductive as well. We need to reject those who are simply angry at the world and are looking for a way to go out of this life with a bang. They’re crazy — and we need to be clear about that.

Share on Social Networks

After I wrote last night about being happy, I thought of an old song that mirrored what I was feeling. After listening to the entire album, I found it remarkable how well the emotions of that music match my own heart at this point in my life. Bob Bennett’s “Matters of the Heart” came out while I was in college. Even after all these years, it holds up really well, and you can listen to the entire album on YouTube. The specific song which matched my feelings last night was “Madness Dancing,” but I still find every song on the album to be strong with the exception of the eighth and ninth. (The song about his parents, called “1951,” is especially poignant.) In fact, the opening and closing songs paint a picture of my heart at its best now in these lines: “A light shining in this heart of darkness, A new beginning and a miracle, Day by day the integration of the concrete and the spiritual.” It’s old music that you’ve probably never heard, but it means a lot to me.

Narcissists tend to turn their children into narcissists — and since a narcissist doesn’t realize he or she is a narcissist, there’s no bad intent. How does this happen? I watched a YouTube video over the weekend from an Australian psychologist who does a nice job of summarizing how it works. None of this is new to me, but I thought it was useful for those who haven’t spent years digging through books and articles about it. The same psychologist has an excellent summary of something which confuses a lot of people about narcissism. You’ve all seen examples of the loud, boisterous and overbearing narcissist, but what about the ones who are more introverted and vulnerable? This type is called a covert narcissist (or a vulnerable narcissist), and this is what my father was. In the first video, I strongly see myself in the ways my father treated me and in the second video, I see what my father was almost successful in making me become.

It’s National Dog Day in the U.S. and Lucy is here to remind you to go express love and appreciation to your favorite canine. Not only does your doggie friend give you love and affection, but he or she also protects your home from intruders — such as birds, squirrels, mail carriers and other undesirables who deserve to be barked at vigorously. Where would we be without that? And if you think this service is actually unnecessary, ask yourself how long it’s been since your home was the victim of a vicious squirrel attack. See? The doggie defense works. Keep barking at ’em, Lucy.

I’ve spent a tremendous amount of time over the last couple of years thinking and writing about love and connection. I’ve come to understand that this lack of love and connection is at the root of a lot of human tragedy and unhappiness, including addictions and depression. As I talked with others and researched the psychology behind the issues, I ran into the surprising fact that researchers are increasingly using psychedelic drugs to allow volunteers to have experiences which are giving them a sense of connection which they’ve lost — something that allows them to feel connected to love and God in a way they didn’t understand before — which is having dramatic effects in combating things such as depression and addictions. In this 15-minute TED talk — without an audience in the age of COVID-19 — Johns Hopkins researcher Mary Cosimano shares her experiences with guided psilocybin sessions being used to treat addiction, depression and end-of-life issues. One of her key observations is the importance of love and connection. She said that it seems love is literally part of the answer. In her role as director of guide/facilitator services for the program, Cosimano is responsible for training and supervising session facilitators.

It’s something I wrote four and a half years ago — in the desperation of loneliness — and it’s become my most popular article. It’s not my best writing. It’s raw and unpolished. But it seems as though a lot of people can identify with it. It’s called Missing someone creates intense physical sensations in my heart. Just to give you an idea how many people still read it, I had 11,586 people visit the page last month — from 2,907 cities and towns around the world. London sent the most readers for it, followed by New York, Westminster, Los Angeles, Chicago, Kuala Lumpur, Melbourne, Sydney, Toronto and almost 3,000 more. I’ve noticed something interesting. It always gets the most hits from an area of the world in the late hours, right after midnight, and that breaks my heart — because I understand why. All these people are so lonely and are missing someone so much that they turn to a search engine looking for answers, so they stumble upon this piece. I wrote this late at night on the day after Christmas because my heart was breaking. I needed to express how much I missed someone, and a lot of people seem to identify with it. If you’re one of those people, I have no way of knowing who you are, but I empathize with you. I know why you hurt. I wish I could do more to help. I hurt with you, because after all this time, I still feel the same way.

Related Posts