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

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts