Jim Bell vindicated

[list@sysfu.com (Seth)]

Reposted from http://morelibertynow.com/nypd-strike/


NYPD STRIKE SUGGESTS ITâ??S TIME FOR ASSASSINATION MARKETS IF WE WON'T  
ORGANIZE FOR NONVIOLENCE, WE'LL HAVE TO ORGANIZE FOR VIOLENCE


We should use political violence (preemptive and generalized violence  
against a class of likely aggressors) against police. Thatâ??s what some  
libertarians have been saying for years. I continue to reject this idea  
but I have to give these folks their due â?? it worked in New York City.

A gunmanâ??s assassination of two NYC police officers while they sat in  
their cruiser on December 20 has led to chaos in the NYC government.  
Almost immediately:

citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent;
summonses for low-level offenses dropped by 94 percent;
parking violations were down by 92 percent;
drug arrests by the NY Police Department (NYPD) Organized Crime Control  
Bureau plummeted 84 percent;
cops received orders to only work in pairs and not even take breaks alone;
police union officials told fellow officers to not make arrests â??unless  
absolutely necessaryâ?? â?? thus calling into question the legitimacy of their  
normal arresting habits â?? and claimed they were on wartime footing;
cops from across the country traveled to NYC to attend the funeral,  
evidence of the wide psychological impact of the assassinations;
infighting between the NYPD and the NYC mayor escalated, damaging the  
effectiveness of the NYC government.
THE DROP IN ARRESTS

The overall drop in arrests, at 66 percent, in the week following the  
assassinations is nothing short of jaw-dropping. How is it that the NYPD  
could effectively go on strike and yet the city is not tearing itself  
apart?

One reason may be that the general public is also horrified by the  
violence and people are behaving themselves better out of deference to the  
cops. Another is that people are on better behavior because they are  
afraid of overreaction on the part of paranoid police. Every cop out there  
may be ready to issue beatings and bullets for even the lowliest of  
infractions (as if they werenâ??t already).

But I think the reality is actually that most of these arrests are for  
penny-ante, mostly-victimless crimes. Theyâ??re about making NYC a more  
pleasant place to live and visit for tourists and those who are well-off.  
The crimes people were being cited and caged for represent no real threat  
to the peace. Those minor infractions are also about filling the coffers  
of the NYC government revenue machine through fines and fees.

INTRA-GOVERNMENTAL STRIFE

John Robbâ??s first rule of open source warfare is to break networks. This  
lone gunman inadvertently did that by leading the NYPD and the mayor into  
greater confrontation, so much so that the cops turned their backs en  
masse on their boss, the mayor, in a public gathering that made headlines.

Whatâ??s more, the gunman did this without any conscious attempt to maximize  
such damage and with the meager investment of a pistol, ammunition and  
transportation to NYC. Who knows how much the executions and their  
aftermath have cost the city of New York and police across the nation, but  
the return on investment (ROI) for this execution must be high.

If the gunman spent $2,000 to carry this attack out, and the cost in  
financial outlays, loss of government revenue (due to reduced ticketing),  
police peace of mind and other intangibles is $20 million, thatâ??s a 10,000  
percent ROI.

A LIBERTARIAN ANALYSIS
In the short term, libertarians may feel the urge to cheer the gunman. But  
you shouldnâ??t. Executing members of a group for the perceived crimes of  
the whole, or of certain members of the group, is rank collectivism. It  
stinks. Libertarianism is individualism. Collectivism is the opposite of  
our philosophy.

This kind of collectivist anti-cop vigilantism could easily get out of  
hand. Careless, suicidal vigilantes could shoot innocent bystanders.  
Paranoid cops could overreact even more than they already do and kill even  
more people than they already do. Then what? Civil war on the streets?  
Nobody wants that.

DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR PUBLIC ORDER

Even in a libertarian society, stateless or not, you need law and order.  
People need to know that those who break the rules will be stopped and  
made to pay for their destructive actions. Without that, society doesnâ??t  
work. The lawless cause more disturbances and the lawful look for other  
solutions or other places to go.

Random murders and police going on strike or engaging in work slowdowns is  
a recipe for societal breakdown. Libertarians are wise to condemn both  
equally, while demanding the continued reduction in harassment of people  
accused of committing victimless crimes.

WHAT ABOUT IN A STATELESS SOCIETY?

In a stateless libertarian society, there are multiple police, or private  
defense, agencies in operation in a city the size of New York. If an  
employee of one agency is assassinated, itâ??s likely that employees of all  
of the agencies would engage in acts of solidarity with the fallen  
employee.

But itâ??s unlikely that all of the agencies would go on strike, at least  
not all at the same time. Unlike the NYPD, which is centrally controlled  
by its commissioner and the mayor above him, private defense agencies are  
each independent and free from coercive outside control. Different  
agencies would likely make different decisions on the question of whether  
to strike or not.

Itâ??s possible that all of the individual employees of all of these  
agencies would be members of the same union, or a tight group of unions.  
That union could go on strike and force a work stoppage or slowdown  
similar to what is taking place in NYC. But, in a stateless society, the  
private defense agencies could just as easily fire or furlough their  
current employees and hire new ones who recognized the need to keep  
working, or just needed the work. These new ones could be experienced  
security agents from out of town or recently-retired former employees.

The NYPD doesnâ??t enjoy that kind of flexibility. It is owned and  
controlled by the local government, the same entity that promulgates the  
laws that make it difficult, if not impossible to fire government  
employees for striking. Even without these troublesome laws, politicians  
dare not act definitively against a striking police union because the  
cops, their friends, family and supporters will vote against them in an  
upcoming election. Private defense agencies donâ??t have that concern,  
though they would have to worry about losing customers who disapproved of  
their mass firing or furloughing of their employees.

Itâ??s also likely that there would not be just one, massive police union,  
or tightly-coordinated group of unions. With multiple private defense  
agencies, the need for a unified negotiating position would likely be  
reduced.

The bottom line is that a legal police monopoly â?? the NYPD â?? makes the  
residents of NYC more vulnerable to crime. This one organization can go on  
strike, or a slowdown, and it threatens the security of the entire city  
because there is no competition to pick up the slack â?? that competition is  
legally banned. In a stateless society, however, if one private defense  
agency shuts down, there is a strong incentive for the others to ramp up  
their operations, in order to collect the customers of the agency that  
shut down.

This analysis doesnâ??t even take into account the fact that competitive  
private defense agencies will not enjoy de facto immunity from  
accountability for their crimes. Without that special privilege, bad cops  
will be held accountable for their actions. Societal rage against bad cops  
will be assuaged by removing this special protection and the motivation  
for collectivist vigilantism against cops will be removed.

LESSONS FOR LIBERTARIANS
The aftermath of the assassinations is a clear sign that assassination is  
an effective tool, at least in the short term, in the fight to control  
police abuse. Police activity is down, cops are scared and the cops and  
mayor are at war. I take no pleasure in saying that because it appears to  
validate the strategy of fellow libertarian activist Christopher Cantwell  
â?? not one of my favorite people.

Given that cops across the country have shown themselves, time and time  
again, to be unaccountable killers, it makes no sense to take this kind of  
abuse lying down. Itâ??s only reasonable to take steps to protect oneself  
 from police abuse and fraud. I choose the nonviolent route because I am  
certain that the violent one will backfire. Already, family and friends of  
cops are organizing in support of police officers across the country.  
Violence is a polarizing tactic that you donâ??t come back from.

But I believe in organization. If folks are going to advocate for  
political violence against police, then at least get the damned thing  
organized so it has a chance of success. Assassination Politics is  
essential reading in this area. In fact, an assassination marketplace  
already exists behind Tor on the Darknet.

So, if people like Cantwell are serious about killing cops, why donâ??t they  
actively promote assassination marketplaces? Why donâ??t they create more  
marketplaces, add more targets and run marketing campaigns for them? Why  
the gratuitous chatter and the lack of sustained efforts toward their  
stated goal?

Itâ??s likely that at least a small amount of targeted violence will be  
required to take down governments, so that a more liberty-centric order  
can supplant them. If we accept that, as distasteful as it is, then  
assassination marketplaces become attractive. Unlike a traditional war,  
assassination marketplaces donâ??t require that you kill tens of thousands  
of cops, politicians and soldiers. In order for assassination marketplaces  
to end the age of the state, only a few targeted individuals need be  
killed. For the rest, active and well-funded threats may be sufficient to  
intimidate aggressors into remaining peaceful while an organized  
resistance takes voluntary civil institutions to the next level.

This idea of keeping cops in check by placing bounties on their heads is  
nothing new. Pablo Escobar used it in Medellín to great effect. The IRA  
used it in Ireland. States are masters at this tactic, both against  
accused criminals and against insurgencies, such as Alvaro Uribeâ??s  
bounties on FARC members in Colombia in the last decade. It works.

If the libertarian communities can ever get our collective acts together,  
someday we may be negotiating with police unions. We will want them to  
stop enforcing victimless crimes and to cooperate with the liberalization  
of their sector by accepting competition â?? the end to their monopoly. When  
negotiating with armed and dangerous paramilitary forces, itâ??s wise to  
operate from a position of strength. Assassination markets are one vector  
for gaining that kind of negotiating position. We would be wise to explore  
our options in that area.

Violence is distasteful. But death and ignominious caging are worse.  
Libertarians have to be realistic. We can never secure our desired  
libertarian future from a position of weakness and disorganization. If  
weâ??re unable or unwilling to organize for nonviolent action, then we will  
have to organize for violent action. The alternative to either of these  
options, a wait-and-see, hemming-hawing, pacifistic apathy, is even more  
repugnant than violence.

A PERSONAL NOTE
Itâ??s tasteless to rejoice in the death of other people, no matter the evil  
of their actions while alive. Every human life is precious, even those  
spent in misguided pursuits like being a US Marshal, a congressperson,  
bureaucrat or a NYC cop because any of those lives can be redeemed at any  
moment and put to great use. See, for example, retired Philadelphia police  
captain Ray Lewis.

I am sympathetic to the families of the assassinated officers. No one  
wants to lose a loved one like that. No one wants to die like that,  
without even a chance to defend themselves. But such feelings must never  
get in the way of speaking the truth.