• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is it a violation of principle for an anarchist to be a cop

Is it a violation of principle for an "anarchist" to accept employment with police

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • No

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I see nothing immoral with requiring citizens to help fund the government. I find plenty of laws and rules wrong which need to be changed. How taxes are handled in the US is very problematic, but I find nothing wrong with requiring taxes in principle.

So you agree. Most forms of taxation are immoral. A percentage of my money is taken by force and then given to others without my consent nor to my benefit. You would agree that is immoral?
 

cjohnson44546

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Memphis, TN
So you agree. Most forms of taxation are immoral. A percentage of my money is taken by force and then given to others without my consent nor to my benefit. You would agree that is immoral?

While the money might be mismanaged and/or used in immoral ways, taxation itself is not immoral. A corrupt government using our money wrongly doesn't make the taxation itself immoral any more than making the earning of the money immoral.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
While the money might be mismanaged and/or used in immoral ways, taxation itself is not immoral. A corrupt government using our money wrongly doesn't make the taxation itself immoral any more than making the earning of the money immoral.

Well said +1

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
While the money might be mismanaged and/or used in immoral ways, taxation itself is not immoral. A corrupt government using our money wrongly doesn't make the taxation itself immoral any more than making the earning of the money immoral.

Ok. Do you think any type of taxation is moral? Take for instance, a tax on labor.
 

Brace

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
183
Location
Colorado
Individualist anarchy tends to be more philosophical than practical. Most people with AnCap leanings are minarchists in practice. AnCap represents an ideal to strive towards, generally within legal and ethical constraints. David Friedman wrote quite a bit on this I understand.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
[ ... ]Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution is very relevant to today's discussion. Article I, Section 8 begins by granting Congress authority to lay and collect taxes. [ ... ]I do not believe that we can restore government to its proper role in a free society by focusing our energies on the revenue side of the equation.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/95/moral-tax.htm

Odd. An article entitled "Morality of Taxation" says very little about morality at all.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
So you answered your own question. You couldn't do it because taxes would pay for your salary.

All I can say to help is look at this way... Usually the guys your helping are legit tax payers and happy to pay for your service especially after you helped them with x thing (find missing kid, find missing/stolen property, help at bad car accidents, help at fires, arrest guys for assaulting/robbing/harassing/disturbing said citizen, etc. Etc.) And the bad guys you arrest or charge for above crimes don't usually pay taxes anyways so don't have to worry about them.

Don't watch you tube or stupid anti cop websites. There's literally hundreds of good things you can do for others in your community and can actually make a difference in peoples lives for the better.

You just have to choose to be that way.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I know that there are a lot of great things that police officers do every day. I know that many of them serve their communities well. But, I don't think that the way in which those duties are performed is the only factor in answering the proposed question, hence, I added "no matter the way in which he strives to perform his duties." Essentially what I meant by that was, no matter if, while performing your day-to-day duties, you do not do anything considered "bad," is there anything inherent in employment as a police officer that would cause you to be in violation of any of the mentioned principles, such as the principle of non-aggression. I believe taxation is a violation of that principle, any possibly all of the ones I mentioned. So, is there any way to reconcile employment as a police officer with the fact that the salary would inevitably be paid by tax collection? And I'm asking honestly... Not trying to make a statement, or argue one way or the other, and I realize that it may seem like I've already answered my own question... I'm just hoping someone might have a perspective that I haven't considered.

Is there not other considerations that would dissuade a citizen from being a cop other than taxes?

Yes, I'm sure there are. But I'm not really trying to weigh pros and cons, I'm trying to determine if there is any way to be a police officer without being in violation of the principles mentioned (such as principle of non-aggression).

There are many. But stealthy specifically stated his main issue was that it was funded by taxes he finds immoral. So he would be drawing a pay check from a source he finds immoral.

It wasn't just a general "hey guys why wouldn't I want to be a cop?". It started pretty specific about taxes and his political beliefs.

He kind of answered his own question.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Yes, I did kind of answer my own question. Honestly, I was hoping for someone to show how I've missed something, and show some way to reconcile employment as a police officer with principles such as the principle of non-aggression, specifically addressing the acceptance of a paycheck sourced by tax revenue.

The only thing I could come up with is that one could seek employment at a private security business which supplements policing in certain communities that hire them. But even then, you would have to verify that the community doesn't pay the private security company through establishment of a tax on that community.


I feel your question deserves a response. I see your question as similar to Nightmare's, and would like to see if the following list of principles/ideals answers the question, at least enough to be able to vote in the poll: non-aggression, self-ownership, private property rights, laissez-faire economics, individual liberty (though this is probably too broad to be useful). As to the links, I don't believe either of them align with the principles, morals or ethics to which I refer. Personally I don't find what portions I read of either to be very logical.

Brice, I would be curious to know which way you would vote in the poll. I agree with your statements. I don't think that they really indicate whether or not you feel that employment as a police officer would put one in violation of the mentioned principles, but I'd like to know.

Thanks for the discussion all. I still feel very torn on the subject, even though it might seem like I keep answering my own question.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
How someone one can honestly tell themselves and advocate that you are not forced to pay because you can leave with a straight face boggles me.

This country was founded by government of the consent by people who refused to leave. It's right there in the DOI.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Why are you limiting you're query to police officers? How about all Government employees, employees that have jobs due in part to the tax dollars of others.

CCJ
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Government and its employees are a direct threat to individual liberty.

I am not a cop because I could not stand idly by and watch another cop violate the law and a citizen's rights. Cops rarely hold their peers accountable as the citizenry is held accountable. Where the money comes from to pay a cop is irrelevant.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Why are you limiting you're query to police officers? How about all Government employees, employees that have jobs due in part to the tax dollars of others.

CCJ

I did consider that, after the discussion was well underway. I guess the query was directly aimed around police officers because that's where my interest laid, but you're right that the same or a very similar question could be applied to most, of not all "government jobs." I just thought that reshaping the question might throw a kink in the discussion.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Government and its employees are a direct threat to individual liberty.

I am not a cop because I could not stand idly by and watch another cop violate the law and a citizen's rights. Cops rarely hold their peers accountable as the citizenry is held accountable. Where the money comes from to pay a cop is irrelevant.

So don't stand by and idly watch. I havent had to do that once.

I'm fact, its a common occurrence for the exact opposite. A partner or coworker will say "f this guy just grab him". And my answer is "no. You can't because of .....blah blah blah".

99% of the time that's enough to.get the officer to calm down or to not do x action. And of it's not then I still DID something to try and prevent them. And that something is a lot more then some guy with a camera watching can do.

For example, just recently was at a disturbance call. A female had been outside yelling at her neighbors. She was intoxicated and had an ongoing fued with neighbors. She then had yelled in the hallways of this apartment building and went into her apartment.

Upon arrival we located the victims of the disturbance got a statement then went to this lady's apartment. Well she was clearly intoxicated and by herself. She was a bit arrogant and cocky about the whole incident (liquid courage). My partner for the night looks at me and says "let's PC her". I immediately tell him "NO". Right in front of her I explain to him she's in her house and that is sacred to me. I then took over the discussion with the female. It was explained to her to basically knock it off with the disturbance (except really nicely).

Furthermore, as we were leaving it was a teachable moment. My partner said " we couldve PCd her". I again said "guy she was in her house. That's a no go. You leave people alone in their house".

Now is he correct we could have legally placed her in protective custody based on her level of intoxication and her being by herself? Yes. Legally we could have and not been held liable in any way. But morally to me, your home is your sanctuary. Personally if I deicide to drink and sit on my couch your going to have problems if you attempt to get me out of it based on me drinking.

So what's the point? 1) literally that night that lady was saved from being arrested on legal but possibly immoral law (good law but bad example). 2) teachable moment to that officer. Will he again PC someone from a home? Guaranteed but because he's a ******. But I did my part in helping.

To me having another officer explain/correct you has more effect then any pos cop block video or protest or calling guys out by photo and name or even law suits. If you stealthy or anyone else have an inclination for the job and feel you can handle it then DO it. I say this because you will be in much better position to help your society and your fellow citizens then standing at a rally with a mask over your face and a anarchist flag.

Everyone complains they want to get rid of the thugs and change departments. Ok then step up and work there and change it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Government and its employees are a direct threat to individual liberty.

I am not a cop because I could not stand idly by and watch another cop violate the law and a citizen's rights. Cops rarely hold their peers accountable as the citizenry is held accountable. Where the money comes from to pay a cop is irrelevant.

So don't stand by and idly watch. I havent had to do that once.

<snip>
Thanks for addressing that which I did not speak to.

You doing the right thing is your apple to my orange. The cops in my small town do the right thing all the time. They use their personal code of conduct to guide their actions, just as you did.

Why does your counterpart hold the view that he holds? Is there not a code of conduct that can be taught before the time to decide one way or the other? Just because you intervened that time does not mean that he will not proceed another time.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
So don't stand by and idly watch. I havent had to do that once.

I'm fact, its a common occurrence for the exact opposite. A partner or coworker will say "f this guy just grab him". And my answer is "no. You can't because of .....blah blah blah".

99% of the time that's enough to.get the officer to calm down or to not do x action. And of it's not then I still DID something to try and prevent them. And that something is a lot more then some guy with a camera watching can do.

For example, just recently was at a disturbance call. A female had been outside yelling at her neighbors. She was intoxicated and had an ongoing fued with neighbors. She then had yelled in the hallways of this apartment building and went into her apartment.

Upon arrival we located the victims of the disturbance got a statement then went to this lady's apartment. Well she was clearly intoxicated and by herself. She was a bit arrogant and cocky about the whole incident (liquid courage). My partner for the night looks at me and says "let's PC her". I immediately tell him "NO". Right in front of her I explain to him she's in her house and that is sacred to me. I then took over the discussion with the female. It was explained to her to basically knock it off with the disturbance (except really nicely).

Furthermore, as we were leaving it was a teachable moment. My partner said " we couldve PCd her". I again said "guy she was in her house. That's a no go. You leave people alone in their house".

Now is he correct we could have legally placed her in protective custody based on her level of intoxication and her being by herself? Yes. Legally we could have and not been held liable in any way. But morally to me, your home is your sanctuary. Personally if I deicide to drink and sit on my couch your going to have problems if you attempt to get me out of it based on me drinking.

So what's the point? 1) literally that night that lady was saved from being arrested on legal but possibly immoral law (good law but bad example). 2) teachable moment to that officer. Will he again PC someone from a home? Guaranteed but because he's a ******. But I did my part in helping.

To me having another officer explain/correct you has more effect then any pos cop block video or protest or calling guys out by photo and name or even law suits. If you stealthy or anyone else have an inclination for the job and feel you can handle it then DO it. I say this because you will be in much better position to help your society and your fellow citizens then standing at a rally with a mask over your face and a anarchist flag.

Everyone complains they want to get rid of the thugs and change departments. Ok then step up and work there and change it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Hi Primus

Putting an overzealous partner in his/her place on the scene is fine however would You testify in court against a corrupt fellow officer?
Changes are made in the court room, not the squad room.
Good hearing from you.
Best regards.
CCJ
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Thanks for addressing that which I did not speak to.

You doing the right thing is your apple to my orange. The cops in my small town do the right thing all the time. They use their personal code of conduct to guide their actions, just as you did.

Why does your counterpart hold the view that he holds? Is there not a code of conduct that can be taught before the time to decide one way or the other? Just because you intervened that time does not mean that he will not proceed another time.

My counterpart holds his view because he is a human and has the ability to make his own opinion and work ethic. We are not robots. We do not go to the academy and get a hip put in us. Some walk into training with biases, temperaments, likes, dislikes, etc. They then apply that to work. Then you have guys who react to the job itself. Some can handle it better then others. Some become "salty" or jaded.

We are indeed taught code of conduct. I would submit nearly every human (that is brought up decently) is taught some basic code of conduct. But its then in the person to utilize and follow what they are taught.

Something about leading a horse to eater but not being able to make him drink.

Take out cop and insert ANY/EVERY job. It works the same way. Food service are taught to prepare your food a certain way. When they screw up they spit in it.

Retail are taught the customer is always right. Except when they think they are wrong some employees treat customers like crap.

Rmv employees get jaded from thousands of rude customers so when you walk up and missed a check box they boot you to the back of the line. Etc. etc.

What's my point? All these jobs have one thing in common. People. Humans. Taught to do one thing but have the capability to ignore it. When they ignore it people suffer.

Again, literally the most effective way to force change is to lead by example and directly change it. Can't do that from behind a camera or keyboard.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Hi Primus

Putting an overzealous partner in his/her place on the scene is fine however would You testify in court against a corrupt fellow officer?
Changes are made in the court room, not the squad room.
Good hearing from you.
Best regards.
CCJ

Certainly would. And he knows it. This officer has been spoken to by myself and others several times in that regard. He knows he has no safe haven from me.

And I completely disagree. Yea I know guys who have gone to federal court and they are now "changed". But I also know several that have and it had no affect on them. I know guys who have been sued and lost over completely false allegations.

Fear of going to court isnt enough. You need guys at the call with you saying "hey brother calm down." Or "no let's just wait for the warrant". And the MOST important phrase " he's a good guy/girl cut him some slack".

Why do you think certain departments have a pervasive "corruptness" or brutality to them? Do they not go to court and keep losing? Of course they do. Does it stop them? Hell no. But if more guys like stealthy joined and were physically there to say "no I'm not writing him a citation for that" or "hey don't charge him with that its a stupid law". Then the department would change.

Again, 1 good guy joining a department is worth more then 100 "activists" parading around or video taping DUI checkpoints. Those videos do nothing. The guy like stealthy can literally affect for the good every shift.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
My counterpart holds his view because he is a human and has the ability to make his own opinion and work ethic. We are not robots. We do not go to the academy and get a hip put in us. Some walk into training with biases, temperaments, likes, dislikes, etc. They then apply that to work. Then you have guys who react to the job itself. Some can handle it better then others. Some become "salty" or jaded.

We are indeed caught code of conduct. I would submit nearly every human (that is brought up decently) is taught some basic code of conduct. But its then in the person to utilize and follow what they are taught.

Something about leading a horse to eater but not being able to make him drink.

Take out cop and insert ANY/EVERY job. It works the same way. Food service are taught to prepare your food a certain way. When they screw up they spit in it.

Retail are taught the customer is always right. Except when they think they are wrong some employees treat customers like crap.

Rmv employees get jaded from thousands of rude customers so when you walk up and missed a check box they boot you to the back of the line. Etc. etc.

What's my point? All these jobs have one thing in common. People. Humans. Taught to do one thing but have the capability to ignore it. When they ignore it people suffer.

Again, literally the most effective way to force change is to lead by example and directly change it. Can't do that from behind a camera or keyboard.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The major problem with that is that police are about the only ones where, even if you are totally innocent, they can put you in jail, cause you both physical and financial suffering, and, the majority of occasions, get away with it. Even if they are sued and the plaintiff wins, it is not the individual officer who violated someone's rights who has to pay; it is, ultimately, the taxpayer.

As far as "behind a camera" goes, the appearance of the many recording devices that people now have has caused many police officers to change their way of doing business. There is a reason that some police officers absolutely hate being video recorded and will try to bluff a citizen into not recording.

Personal opinion: Yes, I know there are many good, conscientious police officers out there. But I also know that I cannot tell them from the few bad officers by visual inspection. Therefore, I do everything within my powers to stay away from all of them and limit any interactions with them. I will exchange friendly greetings and will even have a conversation unless and until I start getting questioned.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
The major problem with that is that police are about the only ones where, even if you are totally innocent, they can put you in jail, cause you both physical and financial suffering, and, the majority of occasions, get away with it. Even if they are sued and the plaintiff wins, it is not the individual officer who violated someone's rights who has to pay; it is, ultimately, the taxpayer.

As far as "behind a camera" goes, the appearance of the many recording devices that people now have has caused many police officers to change their way of doing business. There is a reason that some police officers absolutely hate being video recorded and will try to bluff a citizen into not recording.

Personal opinion: Yes, I know there are many good, conscientious police officers out there. But I also know that I cannot tell them from the few bad officers by visual inspection. Therefore, I do everything within my powers to stay away from all of them and limit any interactions with them. I will exchange friendly greetings and will even have a conversation unless and until I start getting questioned.

Agreed.

But cameras aren't on every shift and at every call. If more guys put the camera down and worked at a shift the affects would be exponential.

And clearly the outcome is much more devastating when its an officer acting out. That is the nature of having authority invested by other people. But he was asking about WHY officers do it. Not if it was worse or which job is more able to hurt people.

The point if a person is doing a job then it can and will be screwed up. Period. So until the day police are replaced by robots (bad idea), there will be the good the bad and the ugly.

Again I submit put more good guys (stealthy maybe?) In there. Not keep him on the outside where he has LESS ability to make change.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
My counterpart holds his view because he is a human and has the ability to make his own opinion and work ethic. <snip>
So, his first thought was to "PC her" and yet you had to instill in him that the home is sacred to you and you would not "go there."

Well, he could have said, I know he did not, "screw you, I'm PCing her and we'll let a judge sort it out." He, and you, were "legal" what then? But that is not what I addressed if he was not "legal" and he states "screw you" what do you do right there right then? Prevent him from committing a crime, or let a prosecutor or judge sort it out. If you won't answer no big deal there are examples of other cops witnessing criminal acts and doing nothing but let judges sort it out. This is why being on the inside will do little to affect meaningful change. The few bad cops will remain on the force until they really screw up and get the boot.

<snip> Fear of going to court isn't enough. <snip>
Why is this not enough? This is all the citizen has. Since it is not enough, in your view, what does the citizen do?

The Boston Constitution Suspension Event is one example of why not to join a cop shop. The Auroa Constitution Suspension Event, and the Dorner Constitution Suspension Event are major examples of cop shops not being held to account and those cops displaying a complete absence of the code of conduct I speak to.

I'll advocate for civil action at every opportunity, cops understand money even when it is not theirs. Loosing civil suits is the indicator that communities need to understand that change from within is unlikely.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
So, his first thought was to "PC her" and yet you had to instill in him that the home is sacred to you and you would not "go there."

Well, he could have said, I know he did not, "screw you, I'm PCing her and we'll let a judge sort it out." He, and you, were "legal" what then? But that is not what I addressed if he was not "legal" and he states "screw you" what do you do right there right then? Prevent him from committing a crime, or let a prosecutor or judge sort it out. If you won't answer no big deal there are examples of other cops witnessing criminal acts and doing nothing but let judges sort it out. This is why being on the inside will do little to affect meaningful change. The few bad cops will remain on the force until they really screw up and get the boot.

Why is this not enough? This is all the citizen has. Since it is not enough, in your view, what does the citizen do?

The Boston Constitution Suspension Event is one example of why not to join a cop shop. The Auroa Constitution Suspension Event, and the Dorner Constitution Suspension Event are major examples of cop shops not being held to account and those cops displaying a complete absence of the code of conduct I speak to.

I'll advocate for civil action at every opportunity, cops understand money even when it is not theirs. Loosing civil suits is the indicator that communities need to understand that change from within is unlikely.

In that case it was a LEGAL act if he arrested her. I felt it was immoral and stopped him. The judge wouldn't have sorted it out because there are no charges when someone is PCd. Think drunk tank time out. No charges no lawyer no hearing etc. Etc. And if she would sober up the next day and sue us she'd lose by a mile based on the facts if the case (causing disturbance, highly intoxicated, by herself).

Now if its not legal then I'd get on the radio and get a supervisor and not take part. If its putting someone in danger then I'd step in physically.

Your point about others watch bad cops do bad things PROVES my point. We need more guys like stealthy who WOULD step in.

Here's the deal my friend I just gave you one example of many that I just recently stepped in and stopped a guy from doing something. Did it make the media? Was it on the 5 o clock news? Did cop block video take it and blast it out? Hell no. Of course you can reference 3 incidents. But thousands go unnoticed and unreported on a daily basis where cops step in and stop other cops.

And its telling you have give an example of a terrorist bombing, a mass shooting, and a murderer on the loose as your examples. Think about that....

If 1 guy per station/shift was a stand up dude who refused to partake in any bad activity. Who who stand up every time and help his fellow cops to calm down or cut people breaks or remind them if the law etc. Etc. That's more valuable then 100 lawsuits. Period.

Now we can agree to disagree I'm ok with that. Just offering food for thought for the OP and any others who are on the fence.

Change occurs from the INSIDE.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Top