Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals – Page 51

My Guide to Caucusing

If you’re living in Minnesota today is caucus day. As somebody who has gone through the caucus process twice I want to write a short guide for any newbies considering going to their caucus today.

The most important thing to keep in mind when caucusing is that it’s a complete waste of time if your goal is anything other than toeing the party line. Politicos will often claim that caucuses are where you have a real chance to effect change. They’re lying. The caucus is the first level in a multi-layered system. It is the layer that gives people wanting to change things within a political party hope. When you arrive you will likely notice that there are few people present, which creates the illusion that you have a greater chance to instill change. But you need to know that this first layer is the least consequential layer and that each layer above it has built-in corrective mechanisms to ensure no meaningful chance occurs within the political party. You may be elected as a delegate at the caucus but if you have any desires outside of the party platform you will be weeded out at a later time (or your voice will be totally ignored if you make it to the national convention).

Now that that’s out of the way I recommend you think of a watering hole that you’re particularly fond of, skip the caucus, and spend your evening drinking beer with friends.

But if you’re one of those people who cannot take advice from somebody who has gone before then I’ll give you some pointers. The first thing you must do is find your caucus. I’m not going to explain how to do that because I’m not one to enable people to make destructive decisions. If you really want to attend your caucus I will take no responsibility for getting you there.

Getting elected as a delegate is pretty simple. First, dress well. I recommend going all out and wearing a suit and tie. Few people will do this and it will make you stand out from the rest of the candidates. Speak effectively. What I mean by this is that you should speak clearly, not use any vulgar language, and not appear nervous. When you’re speaking stick to the party line. If your goal is to effect chance within the party keep it to yourself. Do not speak on specifics.

Libertarians attending a Republican Party caucus may feel a desire to discuss ending the Federal Reserve and America’s foreign wars. Know that most of the attendees aren’t aware of the Federal Reserve’s existence and ending it isn’t in the official Republican Party platform so they won’t support it. Instead give vague and empty statements about wanting to return this country to “fiscal responsibility” (it’s such an empty and meaningless phrase that it’s included in the party platform, which means other caucus attendees will lap it up).

If ending America’s foreign wars is what you desire then keep your mouth shut. Without a doubt there will be at least one person at every Republican Party caucus that has a hard-on for Israel. In their eyes opposing America’s foreign wars is equivalent to abandoning Israel to the barbarians in the Middle East (in their opinion “barbarian” is synonymous with “Muslim”). Any mention of ending America’s wars will be met with accusations that you’re and anti-Semite. Once that accusation is out there you’re chances of getting elected as a delegate drop to zero. Instead discuss the need for a strong home defense and ending foreign aid to “our” enemies (caucus goers are naturally collectivists and like to think of Americans as a single cohesive group so use collectivist terms such as “our” and “us” frequently).

At the beginning of the caucus there will be elections for event positions such as chairman. Volunteer for one of these positions. Caucus goers tend to elect people who they perceive to be willing to sacrifice their time and energy for the good of the party. By running for a caucus position you demonstrate your willingness to participate in all of this madness. In the eyes of most attendees this shows a willingness to sacrifice time and energy for the party. Don’t worry, if you get elected to any of these positions you won’t have to suffer much work so running is fairly low risk.

During the evening an opportunity to add to the party platform will be arise. Note that, like the caucus itself, this opportunity is an illusion that enacting change is possible. In reality each caucus will have a slew of its own proposed changes that will be reviewed and dumped by higher layers in the party process. The only chance of getting an adjustment made to the party platform is to make it sound like something that already exists on the party platform. What the higher ups are looking for is a more politically correct rewording of the current platform. If you can make the psychopathic statements in the platform more palatable to decent human beings you have a chance of getting it added. With that said, if you’re trying to get elected as a delegate you probably want to make some attempt to create a platform change. Keep it vague though. Something specific such as ending the Federal Reserve will never go anywhere. Instead find a way to reword fiscal responsibility to sound more convoluted and empty.

Remember that running for a delegate position carries with it the risk of actually getting elected. If that happens you will be asked to sacrifice more of your free time by attending the next party event at a later date (and that date will almost certainly collide with something else you have planned because karma is a bitch). Honestly, it’s better to stay home or go to the bar. At least then you won’t face the risk of becoming a delegate.

Another Bad Idea By Amy Klobuchar

I have to agree with Techdirt, whenever Klobuchar presents legislation involving technology everybody “should run screaming for the hills.” Her history on technology-related bills makes it obvious that she doesn’t actually understand the technology she’s attempting to legislate. Her latest attempt at infusing the state with our technology is a bill that would require mobile phone manufacturers to include a kill switch that can be remotely actives in all of their phones:

Her latest move is to propose a bill that would mandate a kill switch in all mobile phones that could be activated remotely. The idea, here, is that this would allow those who had their phones stolen to disable them, rendering them (sorta) useless. It seems that, as with the other bills discussed above, Senator Klobuchar introduces these with the best of intentions, but with no clue about how technology works, or the likely “unintended” consequences of such things.

This legislation mandates what Apple is already doing, include a mechanism for iOS customers to render a device unusable should it get stolen. If this feature isn’t already included in Android and Windows Mobile I’m sure it will be soon. But the choice of including such a kill switch should be made by the manufacturer because, get this, some customers don’t want a remotely activated kill switch in their communication device. Such a feature could easily be abused. How easy would it be for a police force to call up a mobile phone manufacturer and tell them to disable all of their customers’ phones in an area where a protest is taking place?

Remote kill switches, like everything else in the universe, have positives and negatives. For some people the positives outweigh the negatives and they seek a devices with a remote kill switch. The opposite is true for other people, which causes them to seek out a device that doesn’t have a remote kill switch. I know it’s difficult for a statist to understand that the human race isn’t like an ant colony. Each person is an individual who had different wants and needs. Some of us want to order a giant rib eye steak and some of us want to order a salad. The choice should be left to the individual making it not mandated by some asshole in a marble building.

Starting an Agorist Business On the Cheap

Last week I discussed my views on on wage slavery. In it I proposed a solution for those wanting to increase their independence from wages: start a business. Many people are fearful of starting a business because they think the initial costs are too high and the prospects of failure are too risky. To alleviate these concerns I’m going to dedicate this post to offering some advice for stating a business. Before I begin please note that this post is being written from the perspective of an agorist. That means I any advice given here will assume that the business you’re starting is “underground” and therefore I won’t waste a bunch of time writing about regulatory compliance. If you want to handicap yourself by starting a “legitimate” business then the costs and risks will be quite a bit higher because you need to pay off the middle man, the state.

The biggest hurdle to overcome when starting a business is the concern about start up costs. Most people believe that starting a business requires a great deal of initial capital. While that is true of some businesses you aren’t required to start one of those businesses. In fact many businesses can be started with the equipment you have on hand already. Look at your hobbies. Can you think of a way to monetize any of them? I reload ammunition to lower my ammunition costs when shooting. That means I already have all of the equipment and some of the knowledge required to reload ammunition. There’s no reason I cannot sell some of the ammunition I load to fellow agorists who are looking for cheaper ammunition that is also free of taxes.

I’m a programmer by trade. That means I have all of the tools and some of the knowledge necessary to write software. I can even write websites if I’m really motivated to do so. Programming is a skill many people already know and most people are able to learn. It’s a skill that only requires the equipment most of us already have, a computer. Resources to learn programming are available for free online. Used programming books are a dime a dozen. Everybody seems to want a website or an iOS or Android app. Becoming an agorist programmer is a business one can start will minimal investment capital.

Are you a practical person? Can you do plumbing, automobile repair, or electrical wiring? Do you already have the tools for these activities? Good news, somebody is willing to pay you for such work! Are you a person who enjoys baking? I guarantee that there are people who would be willing to buy fresh baked bread, pastries, and treats from you. Have you learned any skills that you would like to teach others? Consider giving lessons. Perhaps you’ve been working on a novel for the last 10 years. Think about finishing it up and selling it or building a reputation as an author so you can crowd source funding for a later novel. Many municipalities now allow individuals to own chickens and there are a lot of people willing to pay decent money for organic eggs. Speaking of organic, did you know people will pay good money for organic vegetables? Maybe it’s time to start that garden you’ve been talking about.

Admittedly the ideas I’ve given here won’t make you rich (unless you’re super luck). But that’s not the point when starting out. The point is trying to find a marketable product or skill that you can provide without needing a large amount of investment capital. Even if you fail to make money at the endeavor you will learn something from the experience. Whether you succeed or fail you will come away with knowledge that will improve your possibility of success in your next enterprise. If you do succeed you will enjoy a little piece of mind knowing you have some income source that is independent of an employer, which will make you a freer person.

If you start by trying to monetize one of your hobbies you will have most of the equipment needed and therefore keep your risks low. Failure simply means continuing to use the equipment you already had as a hobby. Success means more independence.

Wage Slavery

I pride myself on the fact that those who self-identify as leftists accused me of being a rightist and those who self-identify as rightists accuse me of being a leftist. Failing to fit into the preconceived notions of others is a good indicator that you are on the right track.

As an advocate of non-aggression and truly free markets I believe my philosophy fits under the libertarian umbrella. But, for reasons I’ve describe previously, I believe that my philosophy is leftist in nature. This not only means a tendency towards radicalism but also a willingness to question ideas that have traditionally been thought of as libertarian.

Today I want to spend some time discussing a term often used by socialists and communists. That term is wage slavery.

Traditional libertarian thinking opposes the concept of wage slavery. The reason for this is that employer-employee relationships are seen as voluntary arrangements, which I agree with. Socialists counter this statement by noting that employees are reliant on their employers for their very survival so the relationship isn’t really voluntary, which I also agree with. Thus I come to my favorite point regarding wage slavery. Both sides have valid points.

For a relationship to be voluntary one must be free to termination that relationship at will. A person’s relationship with the state isn’t voluntary because attempting to break off that relationship tends to end with the person being kidnapped and caged by agents of the state (or outright murdered). But a person can leave their job at will — unless they can’t. Something libertarians often forget to consider is how dependent an employee generally is on their employer.

Why do people work for an employer? Because they need money to buy goods and services. Everything from food to water to healthcare are reliant on acquiring money. Here in the United States an individuals healthcare accessibility is also dependent on their employer’s provided health insurance policy. In other words there are sizable barriers preventing an employee from simply up and leaving his or her job.

Now that I’ve covered why I think wage slavery is a valid condition I think it’s time to address solutions to it. Socialists tend to favor ideas such as a universal basic income (UBI). The idea behind a UBI is that each person receives an income necessary for survival regardless of employment status. While the idea sounds good on paper any descent economists will rightly point out that such a program is necessarily inflationary and libertarians will point out that such a program requires the use of force to implement.

No, a UBI isn’t a working solution in my opinion. Instead I find the solution to wage slavery to be similar to solutions for most relationship-based problems. You don’t need a job, you need a business. This is a common saying amongst Minnesota’s agorist community and it rings true. So long as you’re dependent on an employer you’re not really free. If your survival is made possible by your work alone then you are much freer. Granted, you are still dependent on your customers but at some point anybody unwilling to subsistence farm is dependent on other human beings. With that in mind I still believe starting a business is the best option for achieving as much independence as possible.

This doesn’t mean you can’t be an employee. Many agorists work for an employer and operate a side business. If they lose their main employment they are able to fall back on their side business to make ends meet, at least until they find employment again. Sometimes a side business becomes successful enough to become an agorists primary source of income. It also doesn’t mean that you have to start a business. Many people are content working for an employer and they should be free to continue doing so if that is what they want. All that I’m saying is that having your own businesses makes you more independent and therefore freer.

So I believe wage slavery is a valid condition, which makes me a dirty leftists, but I also believe a libertarian solution exists, which makes me a dirty rightist (by United States standards anyways). Wage slavery is something that both sides of the aisle could find common ground with. Sadly the self-proclaimed leftists seem unwilling to accept a libertarian solution and the self-proclaimed rightists seem unwilling to acknowledge wage slavery as a legitimate condition. Thus two radical philosophies will continue to find themselves locked in an eternal death spiral while the statists continue to rule over everybody.

The Death of Politics

One of my friends posted an excellent article on Facebook last week by Karl Hess. The article is titled The Death of Politics and, as you can guess by the title, discusses the various ills of the political process:

This is not a time of radical, revolutionary politics. Not yet. Unrest, riot, dissent and chaos notwithstanding, today’s politics is reactionary. Both left and right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say: Both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power. Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself.

Radicals and revolutionaries have had their sights trained on politics for some time. As governments fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men’s affairs, government’s own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement. In the meantime, the radical-revolutionary position is a lonely one. It is feared and hated, by both right and left — although both right and left must borrow from it to survive. The radical-revolutionary position is libertarianism, and its socioeconomic form is Laissez-faire capitalism.

Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit: that all man’s social actions should be voluntary: and that respect for every other man’s similar and equal ownership of life and, by extension, the property and fruits of that life, is the ethical basis of a humane and open society. In this view, the only — repeat, only — function of law or government is to provide the sort of self-defense against violence that an individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself.

If it were not for the fact that libertarianism freely concedes the right of men voluntarily to form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, libertarianism could be called anarchy.

Even if you don’t consider yourself a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist I believe this article has a lot of valuable points regarding the political process that is worth reading. Namely the article touches on several points I’ve discussed regarding the political process including the fact that it is the system established by our rulers and that the system has a habit of devouring the lives of those who participate in it.

Politicos often criticize individuals who don’t participate in the political process. They will accuse those who refrain from political participation of being lazy and unwilling to do the work necessary to instill change in society. I believe that political participation is an act of laziness. It is what people do in lieu of the work necessary to instill change in society. Instilling change requires changing the opinions of the masses and the most effective way of doing that is to live by example. People generally seem to gravitate towards those who live lives consistent with the principles they espouse.

Political participation is an attempt to seize the power structure for your own gains. When people win political battles they merely win at gaining control over a system that allows them to instill their will on society at the point of a gun. It doesn’t mean people in that society will believe what you believe it only means they will comply with what you believe because a great deal of force is being used to make them. Living by example, on the other hand, tends to convince people that your beliefs are good enough that you live your life by them. Even if they don’t agree with your beliefs they will often respect them and more often than not they will adopt aspects of your beliefs into their own lives.

Libertarianism is a philosophy of peace. Specifically it is a philosophy that teaches the initiation of violence is wrong. Politics is an act of initiating violence and is therefore, in my opinion, incompatible with libertarian principles. Sadly we have all grown up being taught that the political process is the method of instilling change in our society and it is very difficult for most to escape that belief. But unless we do we will find yourselves forever under the boot of rulers.

Increasing the Flow Through the School-Prison Pipeline

The 13_th Amendment of the United States Constitution didn’t abolish slavery regardless of what many believe. What it did was change the rules. Criteria for who can and cannot be used as a slave is no longer based entirely on skin color, although it often plays out that way. Instead the primary criteria is whether or not an individual has been given the arbitrary label of criminal. With the slave labor pool dropping something has to be done to keep Federal Prison Industries and Corrections Corporation of America stocked with workers.

Schools in Minnesota, and most likely their slave labor employing partner MINNCOR, are looking at an innovative new way to get those numbers back up. The experiment involves drug testing children in schools:

School administrators in Duluth are talking about testing students randomly for drugs.

Educators say parent and student input would be gathered if the idea moves forward.

Parent Deb Johnson tells KSTP’s sister station WDIO-TV she’s in favor of the tests because it would likely curb the drug problem in the high schools. Johnson is president of the Duluth East Parent-Teacher-Student Association. She expects some resistance to the idea.

Since every activity an adult can possible consider doing is effectively illegal in this country the only way to increase the flow of laborers into the prison system is to either increase enforcement or criminalize children. Increasing enforcement costs money and requires more badged thugs. Criminalizing children is much easier because the population is mostly captive. This is probably why more states have been trying to open the school-prison pipeline wider. Testing adults for drugs is slightly more difficult than testing children for drugs because adults have the right to refuse. Children, on the other hand, are given no legal opportunity to refuse any order given by a school administrator.

I’m sure many people, like Deb Johnson, will approve of drug testing children. They will approve of this because they perceive that a drug problem exists and believe drug testing will fix that problem. In reality this is a case where the “fix” is worse than the “problem”. In all likelihood any kid who tests positive for drug use will find him or herself brought up on charges. What may have been a youthful indiscretion would turn into a lifelong punishment.

Finding a job is extremely difficult when you have anything on your criminal record. It’s one of the reasons I believe the recidivism rate is so high in the United States. After getting out of prison an individual has a difficult time getting a job so they return to crime in order to survive. By charging children with a drug offense they are effectively guaranteed a lifetime of hardship in regards to finding a job. While many people may claim that this is a good reason for kids not to do drugs we need to be honest and admit that children suck at long term planning. That’s part of the reason we don’t trust them with real responsibility. So hitting them with a lifelong punishment is nothing short of absurd. But that’s most likely what will come of these drug tests.

I find it sick that the schools are even thinking about doing this and I find it even sicker that many people will actually approve of this.

Why Police Departments Fight Cannabis Legalization

Legalizing cannabis is a fight that has been ongoing here in Minnesota for many years. The current governor, Mark Dayton, has stated numerous times that he would only sign a legalization bill if law enforcement signed off on it. That’s a great cop out because law enforcement agencies are unlikely to support any effort to legalize cannabis. Their reasoning is simple, legalizing cannabis would cut into their revenue:

MILL CREEK, Wash.—A drug task force in Washington’s Snohomish County has historically been funded in part by cash, cars, houses and other assets seized from marijuana purveyors. But with recreational pot becoming legal in the state, this funding is going up in smoke.

Snohomish’s 22-officer drug-fighting operation, one of 19 such task forces in the state, brought in about $200,000 from forfeitures in marijuana cases in 2012—15% of its funding that year; the haul has exceeded $1 million in years past. The task force has a piece of land, seized from a pot grower, where it stores seized vehicles awaiting auction and trims with a riding mower confiscated in a drug bust.

The county’s task force has already slashed its projected funding for this year by more than 15%, partially because of a decline in revenue from asset forfeitures in pot cases, said task force Commander Pat Slack. That will mean less money for overtime, training and new equipment, said Mr. Slack, a vocal opponent of legalization.

With marijuana legalized for those at least 21 years old in Washington later this year and in Colorado as of Jan. 1, law-enforcement agencies in those states expect to lose millions in revenue gained from assets seized from growers and dealers.

Cannabis prohibition is a racket. Through civil forfeiture laws police departments make large amounts of money off of the war on unpatentable drugs. The incentive of revenue ensures police departments will generally oppose any form of cannabis legalization.

Government decrees tend to have an air of permanency to them. Nobody should find this surprising because most government decrees become revenue generators for the state. Whether violating decrees result in direct extortion (fines and confiscation of property), enslavement (prison), or coercion (being forced to work as a snitch for the state) the state always manages to turn its decrees into profit. Once something becomes a revenue generator it’s difficult to convince those profiting from it to destroy it.

Reducing Gun Violence and Enacting Gun Control Laws Aren’t Synonymous

Yesterday I opened a copy of the Star Tribune sitting in the lunch room at work and found, unsurprisingly, a letter to the editor arguing for gun control. While letters arguing in favor of gun control are a dime a dozen in the Star Tribune I decided to post this one here because it demonstrates a common logical error in the gun control movement:

I was moved by the article written by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (“Fighting gun violence day by day, step by step,” Jan. 9). She describes the incredible difficulty she has had to face after a coward with a gun shot her in the head. But she has survived, is recovering well and is committed to ending gun violence along with her husband, Mark Kelly.

I support her efforts and, along with thousands of others in our state and millions across this country, realize the necessity of making our communities safe from gun violence. People victimized by guns have rights, too.

Truthfully, it has never been about the loss of Second Amendment rights nor about government confiscation, despite what the public has been told by the gun industry. On the contrary, common-sense laws that require universal background checks, prevent illegal gun traffic and straw purchases, and allow the collection of data from gun sales and crime have been proven to save lives while still maintaining the right to own guns.

Let’s work together to get this done. Our cause is just and growing, and we will not be silenced.

JAY THACKER, Shoreview

Mr. Thacker is arguing for a need to reduce gun violence and to enact gun control laws. His argument implies that the two are synonymous, which they aren’t. We live in a period that has seen a dramatic increase in the number of firearm sales and an overall reduction in violent crime. Increases in firearm sales have been due to multiple criteria including a governmental push for stricter gun control laws and a rapid increase in the number of carry permit holders. We’re not simply experiencing an increase in the number of firearm sales but also in the number of firearms being carried by individuals.

Gun control laws have the sole purpose of reducing the number of firearms in circulation. The belief of gun control proponents is that decreasing the number of firearms in circulation will reduce the rate of gun violence. That belief has been proven false by the above mentioned points. Therefore we must look at other reasons for the overall reduction in the rate of gun violence that we are enjoying today. I’m not foolish enough to believe that there is a single reason for the reduced rate of gun violence but I do believe that an armed society is a polite society plays a sizable part.

Increasing the number of firearms being carried on the street also increases the potential consequences for performing a violent crime. Assaulting, raping, or murdering somebody becomes more dangerous when the more members of the potential victim pool are able to effectively defend themselves. This potentiality is mutually exclusive to the potentiality that reducing the number of firearms in circulation also reduces violent crime rates. Since we are experiencing a period of higher gun sales and lower gun violence we must conclude that the beliefs of gun control advocates are false. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the beliefs of gun rights advocates are factual but those beliefs haven’t been proven false yet and a lot of evidence supports such beliefs.

If one is serious about wanting to reduce gun violence they should abandon their advocacy of stricter gun control laws. It’s demonstrable that gun control laws aren’t having an effect on gun violence rates. This means that gun violence rates must be effected by other factors. These factors must be discovered and understood before an effective method of reducing gun violence rates can be pursued. Therefore I urge those wanting to reduce gun violence to invest their time and resources into uncovering factors that effect gun violence rates. Once we have a better understanding of the causes of violence in a society we can work to address those issues.

We’re All Criminals Now

This post is for all of those people who believe this country needs to be tough on crime. While severely punishing criminals sounds like an effective idea the problem with such an attitude is that we’re all criminals. There are over two centuries of laws on the books at a federal level. Hawaii, the newest state in the United States, has over half a century of laws on the books while every other state has even more. It’s not just the laws that make us criminals but previous court decisions also create more criminals. In fact nearly 50 percent of black males and 40 percent of white males are arrested before they reach 23 years of age:

A large number of American men have already been arrested by the time they’re in their early 20s, according to a new report.

The study, published on Monday in the journal Crime & Delinquency, found that nearly half (49 percent) of African-American men and 40 percent of white men have been arrested by the age of 23, “which can hurt their ability to find work, go to school and participate fully in their communities,” according to a press release.

When everybody is a criminal the label criminal loses its meaning. That’s the point we’re at in our society. The average American unknowingly commits three felonies a day. If we became tough on crime or enforced the laws already on the books every single one of us would be in a cage.

This is something you should consider the next time one of your friends or a politician blabbers on about the need to be tougher on crime.

Taking Out the Trash

I believe most people reading this post are aware of the rate of corruption that exists in Mexican police forces. In many place the drug cartels effectively own the police. When you think about it it makes sense. Drug cartels are generally composed of psychopaths who have no quarrel with hurting people as are police departments. A strategic alliance between the two seems inevitable. Unfortunately, if you’re not a member of the government or the drug cartels, you’re in a pretty bad position. You must make a choice between submitting to the police-cartel alliance or taking out the trash:

Small groups of local vigilantes took up arms and joined forces to storm Paracuaro, headquarters of the Knights Templar gang, where they arrested police officers and seized control of the town in a blaze of gunfire.

They drove into the town in black armoured vehicles shouting ‘Don’t be frightened, we are vigilantes’, before expelling drugs traffickers, whom they accuse of kidnapping people and bribing them to make money. Several gun battles were reported, leaving at least one dead.

Police officers, whom the vigilantes accuse of being in league with the cash-rich drug gangs, were rounded up by machine-gun toting locals, along with others suspected of associating with gang members, and a checkpoint was set up at the entrance to Paracuaro.

Many people will likely be quick to point out that the town merely swapped one set of rulers, the police-cartel alliance, for another set of rulers, the vigilantes. That may be true but it’s also likely that the vigilantes won’t be as ruthless as an alliance between two psychopathic organizations. I would also say that the vigilantes were likely members of the local community who became fed up with the alliance and simply wanted to rid their town of violent offenders and not claim rule over it.

As things continue to deteriorate in the here United States I won’t be surprised if we begin seeing actions like this. Many police departments, such as the ones in Los Angeles and New York, are known for their brutality and violation of civil rights. As economic matters continue to worsen these departments will likely try to take advantage of the situation by increasing the rate of arrests so property can be confiscated. A breaking point will eventually be released and the people will decide to so the cops out and establish a superior, and far less violent, system of neighborhood protection.