Saturday, January 7, 2012

Police and Security

A common misconception among society is that the role of police officers is to provide security. It's not. Quite the contrary. Security is on-site, monitoring, and guarding whatever it is that needs to be secured. If it's not, the owner of whatever wealth is in need of security is taking a risk, perhaps acceptable.

Police officers, on the other hand, rarely monitor and guard society. Once in a while there's an event or some such that requires their presence, but that's usually to keep "law and order", not to secure anything. And thus we have their role: law enforcement.

More often than not the law that police officers are enforcing are laws that make it harder for society to secure itself. Laws against firearms, for example. In other words, firearms laws say that we aren't allowed any advantage in securing our persons and property, and we must pay for police officers to bring us to "justice" when we violate these laws.

It's a simple exercise in logic, really. The law, created and enforced by a legal monopoly, is used to make society less secure. Far from police officers as a form of security, they are in fact a form of anti-security. If society does what it believes it must for security, the police will arrest them, cage them, and confiscate their wealth. And there you have it.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Ron Paul and The Future of Liberty

I've had my share of mixed feelings regarding Ron Paul. As a defender and promoter of liberty, Ron Paul is matched by few men. He's introduced millions to individualism, free markets, sound money, and non-interventionism. I applaud him and praise him for his selfless efforts in this beautiful cause. He's taking his principles to ever wider audiences, and as President of the United States, he would have a greater platform than any libertarian has ever had in the fight for freedom.

But I have my reservations. One the one hand, there are those who argue that a Ron Paul victory would only prolong the life of the American Empire. While it may have it's reigns tightened for a time, it would ultimately continue it's course of plunder and destruction once Ron Paul is out of office. While Ron Paul would be a beacon for educating the masses on the principles of liberty, when the Empire does reach it's logical conclusion, Ron Paul and libertarianism would be made into a scapegoat. I have sympathy for this position.

On the other hand, with Ron Paul reaching ever-wider audiences, and people finally being offered an alternative to the statist quo, he may do just enough to make serious inroads to the growth and centralization of the State. He would, purportedly, bring all the troops home and close down hundreds of foreign bases. He would pardon non-violent drug offenders, freeing millions(?) with the stroke of a pen. He would stop enforcing unconstitutional laws and promote respect for State sovereignty. He would be a very powerful weapon for decentralization from Washington. These are things that are certain, moves toward liberation and freedom that would happen now.

Mixed feelings indeed. Of course, this is all theoretical. I believe he'll be assassinated before he's able to do anything of consequence, as I explored here. That aside, it will be an interesting next few years. There will be a silver lining either way. While I don't believe a post-collapse America uneducated on the principles of liberty would keep a free society for very long, it would end the plunder and destruction by the Federal government immediately. Likewise, a Ron Paul presidency would make real advances on correcting injustice and righting wrongs. Perhaps either way, liberty wins for a time, before the state makes it's seemingly inevitable rise once again.