In an article on Voluntary Virtues
, Christopher LeRoux defends the position that Christopher Cantwell made advocating the murder of police officers in line with the N.A.P.. Mike Shanklin attempted to do the same and it ended embarrassingly.
So here, I will use the same line of reasoning I will show why it would be justified under their view on the Law of Non-Aggression Principle (LONA.)
The law of non-aggression [LONA] is absolute, axiomatic, a priori, eternal and universal: No one may ever lawfully initiate aggression, coercion, or fraud under any circumstances. Yet while the LONA criminalizes all initiation of violence, it sanctions proportional defense. Thus it would not be lawful to shoot someone who merely steps across the front yard of your house but only to issue a warning. But if a trespasser refuses to desist, a greater amount of force becomes appropriate, and even deadly force could become necessary. Likewise, if your house is robbed while you are out, it is lawful to seek proportional restitution. If the criminal resists, deadly force could become appropriate.
This seems well and good so far. Let’s continue.
In our present, barbaric society, some people claim to be exempt from the LONA because they work for a fictional entity called the “state” or “government.” Every moment of our lives, we groan under the domination of these violent criminals. The extortion they call taxation and their billions of dictations oppress our existence day and night. Their aggression, coercion, and fraud are unceasing, unrepentant, and enforced with any amount of violence they deem necessary to maintain total control. However, all individuals are equal under the law of non-aggression, the only social law.
OK so the non-aggression principle is not using force or fraud and using the appropriate proportional response to prevent or stop the aggression and the state are aggressors because of their actions of taxation, police actions, war..etc. because no one is exempt from LONA. OK, Got it.
He goes on to explain in mind-numbing detail every possible scenario of interacting with a police and preventing him from aggression him and the only thing that gets established is that no matter what you do the state will always up their aggression against you no matter what. It concludes that such a conflict is unwinnable and not very smart. No, shit. So what’s the solution?
If it is impractical to warn them to cease and desist or to wait for an armed attack against a fixed position, is it moral to “take the offensive” in a defensive struggle? Can we lawfully target and kill a “police officer” at home in his stolen bed for instance? Yes, it is lawful if it is necessary to reduce or abolish the crimes being committed against us. We have no duty to submit to our slavery. We may target “police” or any other “government” employee, even in their stolen homes, in the middle of the night, if we believe it will reduce the crimes being committed against us. Does this justify going on a random killing spree of “state” employees? No, proportional defense against aggressors not in the immediate act of aggressing is clearly only justified as part of an effort for restitution or overall tactic and-or strategy to reduce overall initiation of violence. Our goal must be freedom and peace, not revenge.
Because you can’t stop the aggressor, it’s well within the N.A.P. to kill the cops while they sleep if we feel that it will stop the aggression. He goes on to say that now is not the time for such action because it’s a fringe view and most people will not be receptive to these actions. Which roughly translates to “I’m a big fucking pussy.”
You see, the reason he makes this clear that he doesn’t advocate doing this even though it’s justifiable in his stupid interpretation of the N.A.P. is because he’s too much of a wuss to get questioned by law enforcement about his blog post and too chickenshit to do it himself when people say he should walk the walk.
So here I will make the case that Mr. LeRoux is making to prevent him causing me further harm.
Mr. LeRoux uses fossil fuels. He uses them directly via electricity generation and/or automotive transit which causes pollution and CO2 emission. He breathes out CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (surely there will be DROs/PDAs that will accept this as true no matter how much you don’t think it’s the case.) Pollution from fossil fuels does contribute to many ill effects on health and the environment. He is also using public roadways which causes wear to the roads and demands more tax dollars to repair, maintain, and police. I could ask Mr. LeRoux to stop breathing and driving, but surely he will resist and continue to harm me and others. I could threaten him with a gun to stop but surely he will not have any of that either. He and his libertarian friends may also assist him in overbearing me with firepower. So I guess it’s justifiable to shoot him in his sleep while he’s pumping out CO2 from his snoring face and heating his house with fossil fuels to prevent me and the rest of the people to stop having to deal with this mess he’s making of the air. It’s not a good idea, not because most people aren’t aware of it and need to be educated but because IT’S ASININE, IMMORAL, AND DANGEROUS.
Seriously if you really think killing cops is a justifiable action then please try so the cops will kill you and I don’t have to keep saying why it’s a stupid idea. They can look at your rotting corpse and come up with non-violent solutions to shrinking or eliminating the state. Also don’t be a pussy about it either. If you’re going to hold up heroes like Christopher Cantwell does to Justin Bourque and Paul Ciancia, then lead by example so we don’t have to listen to you making asses of libertarians anymore.
“I respect the choices people like Justin Bourque and Paul Ciancia have made. They identified their aggressors, and took action to stop them from aggressing.”
― Christopher Cantwell, a VoluntaryVirtues Friend and Regular Guest
Christopher Cantwell and the window lickers at VoluntaryVirtues are shitcocks”
― Jim Jesus, smarter than anyone at VV.