Stefan's faith in "authorities"

[kalmia]

I have heard many FDR podcasts where Stefan suggests call the "authorities" or call the cops in situations of abuse. I always find this irritating.

 

From my experience, the "authorities" are most problematic in areas where abuse is most common. I live in an area now where I hear neighbors fighting. I have heard people yelling on another block when I had the windows closed at night. I see little children, clearly neglected, smashing up abandoned houses that are dangerous. I have heard stories about little pre-kindergarten children killing feral kittens.

 

I did not call anyone and won't.  I see the police as some of the most despicable thugs around. I try to be friendly to people especially children. I figure the best thing to do at this time is just interact in a positive way so they see a positive communication modeled. I'm not great at it, but I think it's worth trying to communicate in this way so they see that there are other types of people in this world. Not surprising, I have heard rumors spread about me being abusive. These rumors appear to come from the neighbors who I imagine are the most abusive based on the behavior of their children. They are projecting their abuse onto me.

 

I believe Stefan's only argument for calling these people into an abusive situation is they are the only option we have right now. This argument is only valid if it is believed that the police are actually beneficial and are working for the ends they claim. They are not. Their stated goals only serve as cover for their predatory behavior. Their only purpose is to intimidate people into complying with the dictates of statists including themselves. They make up false accusations to get arrests. They cowardly target those who pose no harm while ignoring those who are a real danger. They prey upon those who appear unable to defend themselves. Sounds like the behavior of an abusive parent, right? The victims of the abuse hang onto the delusion that their abusers are there to protect them. The state is clearly just an extension of the dysfunctional family. To call in predators to deal with predators is to support predators.

 

It's possible that my experiences with cops and other similar types are very different from what many others experience. The Ontario and British police may be mostly nice fellows in some areas.

 

Maybe Stef's suggestion comes out of his wishful thinking that calling them will be productive or that someone could have called and prevented abuses done to him. Maybe he is still hanging onto the myth of a savior coming in to solve a problem.

 

Letting go of this faith in imposed authorities leads to the uncomfortable reality that there is no protector. If we can tolerate this reality, we can begin to form new solutions that may actually benefit those who are being abused. It will take a long time to get these solutions to a productive level, but we have to begin. And we can't begin if we continue to live in the fantasy of a cop or CPS worker coming in and saving children.

 

Building a free society involves de-normalizing abuse and seeing it for what it is, and those who tolerate abusive "authorities" are those who have normalized abuse. This meme of normalizing abuse is what needs to be destroyed. The meme of attachment to an abuser as is so common in the most abusive cultures must be destroyed. I'm sure many of you have noticed that insulting a person's mother is taken most personally by those who have the most abusive mothers. This is a painful reality that musty be exposed. So what are the solutions? I don't know. But focusing on spreading new memes is the best solution right now. Model positive interactions. Break down the free society, or more appropriately a transitional society, into the memes that comprise it. Advertise these memes so thoroughly that children who are unsatisfied will begin to question societal norms. Make the questioning of parents a normal behavior. Get it into discussion. 

 

Some ideas I have are posting billboards with lines such as:

"Mothers who love don't hit."

"Mothers who love don't yell at children."

"Respect Children"

"Break the cycle. Respect children."

 

 

 

 

 

A business idea I have had that is probably not yet possible is a business made up of people who go around to homes where abuse is suspected and simply discusses peaceful parenting while empathizing with the frustrations of the parents. It would take the right kind of people to do this, something I am not. I think it may also have to wait until after some of the memes of questioning parents have been promoted sufficiently. This would also have to be funded on a donation based model something I also cannot afford.

 

I have other ideas and am open to suggestions from anyone who is interested in this idea. 

 

Your feedback will be appreciated.

 

[TheRobin]

I like the constructive ideas. To bring some critic to the acutal meme you posted, I think the baseballbat looks rather weird though.

 

But I also want to add that using phrases like "wishful thinking" and "hanging on to the myth of a saviour" are certainly not productive (or even accurate). Especially if you don't even bring any evidence to the table in regards to what the statstics are for how cops handle such cases (which would certainly be appreciated, nothing wrong with shwoing how a perceived solutions doesn't work, but you actually have to show it instead of just dishing out ad hominems).

[JamesP]

This would be worth a call-in, I think. I notice you haven't asked any open-ended questions of Stef, though. You came in pretty hot on this one.

[Guest Mags]

I'm honestly not sure of my opinion on this, but I agree coming up with different, better, measures than turning to the government agencies is obviously a good thing. It does seem to boil down to advocating peaceful parenting. Even if it's not to the parent but the child, to let them know there are better ways and their parents are unequivocally wrong. 

Along with the policeman in your billboard you could put something symbolising war or the military. A soldier shooting a civilian maybe. 

[BlackHeron]

I do understand where you are coming from kalmia.  I don't like the idea of calling the po-po myself and would try to avoid it if there was any other viable alternative.  But sometimes it is like driving on the roads.  Sure, they shouldn't have been built but it's the infrastructure we have.  I've tried flapping my arms as hard as I can and can't seem to fly and air-cars are not commercially available yet.   So what are you going to do?

 

At some point even an ethical voluntaryist needs to interact with the evil system.  The game is rigged, but unfortunately it's the only game in town and our choices are pretty limited in some situations.  Kobayashi Maru.  When it comes down to some kid being abused or holding my nose and calling the pigs, I guess the kid is more important...

[Belluavir]

I like the constructive ideas. To bring some critic to the acutal meme you posted, I think the baseballbat looks rather weird though.

 

But I also want to add that using phrases like "wishful thinking" and "hanging on to the myth of a saviour" are certainly not productive (or even accurate). Especially if you don't even bring any evidence to the table in regards to what the statstics are for how cops handle such cases (which would certainly be appreciated, nothing wrong with shwoing how a perceived solutions doesn't work, but you actually have to show it instead of just dishing out ad hominems).

 

The burden of proof for such evidence would fall upon the person making the positive claim "one ought to call the police in cases of child abuse." It being "all we've got" or the fact that it's the status quo that we're used to operating under is not sufficient.

I think we can all agree on the fact that the street gang we call "the police" is a pretty monsterous organisation. Why would I want to get them involved in anything if I wasn't being compelled to do so? I could be off base but it sounds to me like fighting fire with gasoline.

 

I do understand where you are coming from kalmia.  I don't like the idea of calling the po-po myself and would try to avoid it if there was any other viable alternative.  But sometimes it is like driving on the roads.  Sure, they shouldn't have been built but it's the infrastructure we have.  I've tried flapping my arms as hard as I can and can't seem to fly and air-cars are not commercially available yet.   So what are you going to do?

 

At some point even an ethical voluntaryist needs to interact with the evil system.  The game is rigged, but unfortunately it's the only game in town and our choices are pretty limited in some situations.  Kobayashi Maru.  When it comes down to some kid being abused or holding my nose and calling the pigs, I guess the kid is more important...

 

Roads are not sufficiently analogous. Sure the roads and the police were put in place by the same mechanism, but one is actively malevolent in and of itself and one just kinda sits there wearing out faster than it can be replaced. Sicing the government attack dogs on bad parents adds a whole new level of escalation to the situation that I'm not sure is helpful (perhaps it is, but that's where evidence needs to come into play to at least show some kind of correlation between bearucrates, the barbarians in blue and positive outcomes for children). Doing something is not necessarily a good idea, especially if we have no idea what the outcome is or if the outcome turns out to be worse than completely ignoring the problem. We're certainly not immune to the hammer and nail fallacy and I think we should be more thoughtful and cautious and less hysterical and reactionary, especially when it comes to using state institutions like gunmen and rape cages.

 

And weren't the police called on Elliot Roger? What did they do again? Nothing? Worse than nothing, they provided a false sense of security! Hey if a bunch of thugs who failed an IQ test says he's a cool dude, then everything must be hunky-dory, right?

[TheRobin]

The burden of proof for such evidence would fall upon the person making the positive claim "one ought to call the police in cases of child abuse." It being "all we've got" or the fact that it's the status quo that we're used to operating under is not sufficient.

I think we can all agree on the fact that the street gang we call "the police" is a pretty monsterous organisation. Why would I want to get them involved in anything if I wasn't being compelled to do so? I could be off base but it sounds to me like fighting fire with gasoline.

 

Well, to be fair, both you and kalmia are making positive claims too here (i.e. that nothing good can come of it and that people are better off not calling to police), but okay. The police are trained in breaking up volence, and if they witness it directly, they can fine or confine the violent person for a while. This isn't a solution to stop all future violence ofc, but it really sets a clear sign for the child at least (and once there's the fear of negative consequences, maybe the parent will stop hitting as well, if only due to not wanting to pay another fine)

[Kevin Beal]

Whatever you can do to help children is awesome.

 

Sometimes having policemen take you away from your molester or tormenter and putting you in foster care is better for the child.

 

In the real world, reports of child abuse are written down and not acted upon most of the time. They use those reports later as corroborating evidence in the case that it's ever so blatant and over the top that it actually puts people in jail or court. In which case the further evidence of your report may help a child never get beat or molested again in his/her life.

 

Foster care is generally pretty shitty and I've known a lot of foster kids, but in every case I heard about, it was far better than the previous home they were in.

 

I was traumatized many times just listening to the stories that these kids told. The idea that they would be forced to go back to the old house terrified me.

 

I've never reported anything, myself. And I really really really don't want to, but I'd do it if I thought I could a child doing it, I would.

 

I'd rather live in a world where there are mistakes made than a world where that child receives no help at all and where people just rationalize to themselves "oh, well, if I report it, it just might end up worse for them" and then do nothing, or only in the abstract.

 

A crazy fucking parent is bad enough. A complacent, cowardly society is even worse in a lot of ways.

[dsayers]

advocating peaceful parenting. Even if it's not to the parent but the child, to let them know there are better ways and their parents are unequivocally wrong. 

 

This is so very important. Just providing a contrasting example could help prevent them from normalizing or internalizing the abuse being leveled upon them.

 

I view calling the police as using force. So I won't do it with regards to something like a noise disturbance, which I'm not yet sure can be considered the initiation of the use of force itself. To call the police with regards to an initiation of the use of force (such as child abuse) is no more escalation than than a rape victim fighting off their attacker.

 

That said, what would calling the police accomplish? Would the cops that show up express caring for the child or simply be looking to punish people for something they could do so over beyond reproach? Or would they simply show up to interrupt the aggression in the moment and lazily walk away, not changing a thing?

 

I think it's really shitty we live in such a world. Sure, a person could get involved themselves rather than calling upon a coercive 3rd party. But in the system we live in, this could end up with the person who intervenes being labeled the aggressor. The risk of that alone is one of the reasons I'm very hesitant to get involved directly despite understanding how hugely important it is.

[AustinJames]

I work with children from low-income and refugee families (lots of abuse) 65 hours each week, and I deal with this dilemma every day.  I see clear evidence of abuse, but feel powerless to stop it.  If I call child services, it is likely that nothing will happen; except that the abuse may worsen, as the abusers will blame the child for 'betraying' them or 'lying.'  Moreover, the abusers may gain confidence after being absolved.  Even if the child is saved from his primary abusers, the prospect of being a ward of the state is less than inspiring; it's terrifying.  There is no guarantee the child will be better off in the care of foster parents.

 

However, there are some lines that, if crossed, I have resolved to resort to a state solution.  Some of these lines have to do with moral principle.  Some are to do with self-interest, as I will be held responsible for NOT involving the state authorities, should certain events come to pass.

 

In most situations, I agree with the advocation to model positive interactions.  For many of the kids with which I work, I am the only person in their life that exhibits curiosity and empathy, and I make a point to promote these characteristics in my interactions.  When there is talk of abuse, I always take a moment to de-normalize it.  For example, if a girl tells me her mom yells at her and slaps her, I may say, "Oh my god, are you serious?  That's terrible!  That's no way for someone to behave-- especially if they say they love you.  Do you know she could go to jail for that?  I don't think anyone should hit children.  It's despicable."  To the older students, I have recommended Stef's Bomb in the Brain series, and asked if they would share the videos with their parents.

 

An important distinction the OP did not address is the fact that the people Stefan was talking about believe in the moral authority of the state.  If an anarchist doesn't call the state authorities, I don't think Stefan would fault them for being skeptical of the effectiveness of such action.  However, if someone who claims that the state is moral (or just, or efficient) does not call the authorities, they are either hypocrites, cowards, or both.  If one seeks state solutions to social problems in their life, and they want to solve the problem of abuse, they will call the state authorities.  If one does not seek state solutions, they cannot be held accountable for seeking alternative solutions and avoiding involvement with the state.  If one advocates state solutions, but does not call the state authorities, they must not want to solve the problem of abuse; and that is what Stef is holding them accountable for.

 

I know I don't have to speak for Stef, but I never got the idea he was angry at people specifically for not calling the cops; he was angry at them for not doing anything.  They would just completely ignore it and pretend they didn't hear or see anything.  

 

I agree with James that you "came in a little hot."  This would make a great conversation, and I suspect you and Stef may not disagree as much as you think.

[kalmia]

I don't know enough about how different departments or agencies operate, but based on my experiences with police, I can't imagine them adding anything beneficial to the situation. They police have clearly normalized a lot of abuse themselves. That is why they attack others. They will see child abuse as just normal parent child interaction.

 

I will acknowledge that I am likely attacked for showing some level of fear around police. I try to suppress it. But I cannot act like i do around some non state person. They trigger lots of negative emotions in me. The only way to fully shut them off as far as I have figured out is to consume some type of drug, not something I want to do all the time just in case. I do when I have to go to court. Considering possible police encounters and preparing for them is something I do whenever I go outside the house. I hate constantly needing to look for them while traveling, but it's the reality of the world I am in. I have been tailgates by police and stopped and ticketed for mad up offenses. I saw them and drove super careful. I eventually pulled into a gas station so I could calm my nerves since I was so tense from being followed. That is when this douchebag flipped on his lights and claim I failed to signal, a lie. I missed the court date. I think I shut it out of my mind so I wouldn't spend my time constantly worrying about it. That lead to a group of cops coming to my house and smashing my window after beating on my door to arrest me for failing to show up for court on the bullshit ticket. When I came outside they had guns pointed at me. Once my brother paid them off they let me out. People who will threaten to kill me like that over a little bit of money are not people I trust to deal with domestic disputes. I have many more negative experiences. I guess I get targeted with ma up accusations since I just give off a vibe of being different. Btw, I try to look pretty ordinary and conservative much of the time.

 

Another thing I have thought about is the possible negative consequences of modeling positive interactions with children. I have noticed that the adults who seem most abusive also appear to have developed a fair amount of hostility toward me. They have also told children lies about me. I guess it's all part of isolating them. I know I'm not the greatest at healthy communication, but I'm sure I am vastly different from what they typically see.

[TDB]

Carlos Morales has been on freetalklive a couple of times, former employee of Texas child protective services. He has some horrifying stats about how kids in foster homes are 6 times more likely to die , stuff like that. http://schoolsucksproject.com/podcast-267a-carlos-morales-truth-comfort-and-child-protective-services-2014-liberty-forum-interview/

[MysterionMuffles]

wow sorry to read about your experience kalmia. If you didn't give this agency a name I would have thought you were talking about the mob.

 

Sorry for the downvote on your original post, that was indeed me. Now I understand why you came in full throttle. Now I understand where you're coming from.

 

It was just terms like saviour and faith and such triggered something in me, despite of how well reasoned your arguments were.

[meta]

^{Kalmia I agree with your statement:
"But focusing on spreading new memes is the best solution right now. Model positive interactions. Break down the free society, or more appropriately a transitional society, into the memes that comprise it."}

 

^{But I have learn one thing through the years, I also found it in a preface of a book:
Any explanation that is offered to someone as to resaonate with subjective experience to make sense.
That it why I don't believe in advertising, slogans, catch phrases.. I have done my share of it. I don't believe in it anymore.
People read those like they passively absorb tv ads. It's not efficient.}

^{It might work with a flavour of icecream, but I think the subject you are trying to tacle is far to deep and serisou to be treated in such a matter.
Yet there is probably no bad publicity, so it is not useless.}
 

^{----------------------------
"I will acknowledge that I am likely attacked for showing some level of fear around police. I try to suppress it. But I cannot act like i do around some non state person. They trigger lots of negative emotions in me. The only way to fully shut them off as far as I have figured out is to consume some type of drug, not something I want to do all the time just in case. I do when I have to go to court."}

^{Do you mean that the use of drugs (weed i guess) help you relax concernging the stress you have around police forces?}

^{If this is what you mean, and if this is the drug you are talking about, beware, because the paranoia that weed developps can also stress you out even more.
But I understand.}

Having experience with a similar defensive use of drugs, we can talk about itn private if you want.

[kalmia]

I believe many have negative experience of adults. Connect with those negative emotions and draw people in. Those who are angry and depressed over the harm done to them but have not yet done much harm to others will be most open. They will feel an instant connection with the ride marketing. Draw them in with this connection and form community among them. Police are bullies. They attack people who lack community like a school bully attacks a kid who lacks parental support. My mother said many times to me while growing up that if I were ever arrested to not call her because she would not get me out of jail. I believe cops can read my lack of social support on me and attack because of it. 

 

It's dangerous, but it's the only way to do it from what I can see. 

 

When I hear "call the cops", it sounds the same as telling a kid who is bullied to go approach the bully in an isolated area. To say this is effective without showing massive evidence is completely faith based.

 

Have you ever noticed that the typical way of interacting with police and courts is some version of self attack and praise of evil? These sociopaths become addicted to this servile behavior and lash out when denied. They are like a crackhead who has his crack pipe pulled out of his hand just before taking a hit he has been jonesing for. 

[Horseradish]

From what I understand of Stef's experience, he came out of childhood seeing no evidence that anyone at all cared that he was abused. When he was in his late teens, people called the cops on him for having a quiet party, but no one called the cops on him for his entire childhood while his mom beat him. I think Stef's argument is that if the cops were called, the child would have evidence that at least one person out there cared that he was being hit. And that makes sense to me.

 

And the idea that it could be worse to call the cops, well it could be better too. We don't have any studies about what happens when the cops show up. I think his point is to do something that the child can see. And maybe that's not calling the cops, maybe it's sending a carrier pigeon with a note to the child. Who knows.

 

I struggle with what to do also, the family across the street used to get in screaming matches in the middle of the night. One night it was going on for a long time, I didn't know if I should call the cops. Eventually, someone else did, and then I felt guilty because I thought I should have done it. I don't know if calling the cops helped the family, but I haven't been woken up in the middle of the night by them since then. I still hear some screaming during the day, but less. I don't know if the kids have been helped, but maybe they have just a little.

[MysterionMuffles]

[kalmia]

Stefan's recent videos on Eric Garner are a clear demonstration of his bias. I kept thinking, "but you said..." in previous podcasts. I found much of it frustrating and annoying. I was more pissed off at him for saying the things he was saying in the videos, but remember that with anyone in the business of ideas, that person will bump into his limits. Rand could not fully apply the NAP to the state, and Molyneux cannot fully apply the state as family theory to cops and courts. Why this emotional blockage? I don't know. I have tried to speculate, but don't have much. 

 

 

Blacks often have the most abusive dysfunctional families.

Black people (and often Hispanics) bond more strongly to their abusers, particularly maternal. It is why there is more of a collectivist identity among these ethnic groups.

White people are more likely to reject their parents, fully or partially. It's also why there is more of an individualist identity among whites.

If you doubt the above two points, think about insulting the mother of a black, Hispanic or white (non-Hispanic). Who is most likely to blow into a rage? There is a reason "yo mama" insults are closely related to certain types of people.

The state is violence. It's solution to problems is violence. (Stef seems to have forgotten that one)

Black people bonding with the state is an obvious extension of them bonding with their abusive mothers. Last weekend I was on a train where I saw a black woman with 4 little children across the aisle. There was a toddler who was screaming and crying. She yelled, ignored and eventually smacked the toddler. I thought about how she was imprinting future police abuse as normal on that little brain. That toddler will run to the mother no matter how much she smacks. And when he is older, he will run to the state no matter how much the police abuse him.

No, blacks do not kinda need police as Stef said in FDR 2872 unless you are saying that abuse victims need abusers.

Stef's insistence that Eric Garner was not choked for selling cigarettes but for resisting is TOTAL abuser apologetics and is a complete abandonment of prior arguments such as taxation is violence. The assertion of the abuser is that taxation is not violence. Resisting the tax man may result in violence but that violence is for resisting. At one point in time, Stef could make this connection. Why his brain farted out in this incident is something I can't figure out.

The state needs slave on slave attack. 

Claiming that those who sell cigarettes at full tax amounts are victims of those who avoid some of the taxes is repeating the language of the abusers. It is supporting slave on slave attack.

Stef belabored the point that Eric Garner knew the drill if arrested. I have heard others insist that it's just a matter of stupidity that causes someone to resist. I think it is possible that he knew on some level that he didn't have a lot of time left. An arrest, not matter now frivolous and baseless can take up years of a person's life, especially one who does not have much money, something a person who sells loose cigarettes is not likely to have. It is possible that he saw this is the end either way, and it was his last desperate plea and he knew this would lead to him dying in a jail cell awaiting trial. I'm sure he spent a good chunk of his life tied up in this system. How much actual wrong-doing? I don't know. Conviction or arrest is irrelevant. Convictions don't mean anything to those who know the true nature of the system. Those who take the attitude of co-operate and deal with it in court do this from a position of access to lawyers and resources that many do not have. Reminds me of a podcast on empathy where Stef told of a guy who told Stef to buy something for a team or sport that Stef could not afford. I suggest Stef listen to that podcast and learn something.

Those who cannot see obvious connections have some emotional resistance. What is it with Stef?

[PatrickC]

I'm always surprised when people express being 'pissed off' with an argument. In all seriousness what does that even mean? Or to what degree does it even matter. Feminists get pissed off with patriarchy all the time, but we're not building a shrine for their contentment are we. I hear 'piss poor' (for want of a better expression) arguments all the time.

 

Stefan's position here is not that Eric Garner did anything wrong. It's that he didn't 'act' in his best 'self interest'. It would be thoroughly irresponsible to publicly put forward the proposition that people "should" ignore threats from policeman. As they have very real life consequences. It's about prevention, not the cure.

[Kevin Beal]

but remember that with anyone in the business of ideas, that person will bump into his limits. Rand could not fully apply the NAP to the state, and Molyneux cannot fully apply the state as family theory to cops and courts. Why this emotional blockage?

You realize this is a two way street, right? If it's a rule that people will bump into "limits" (whatever that means), then that applies to you as well.

 

If I can be frank, the rest is a lot of frustrated confirmation bias rather than a case built on solid evidence, conveniently mistaking the entire purpose of the video so as to paint Stef as the "abuse apologetic" guy you already attempted previously. Nowhere does Stef support the state. He says in the show and in a follow up with a listener about the show that he as to care about these details because the state is there, and not because he thinks cops are so great. That is, if we accept the reality of the police and state laws, these are the logical conclusions. The purpose being not a defense of the state, but as a clear demonstration that no racial hate crime took place. He's very clear about this.

[kalmia]

He promotes RTR, and often says he is annoyed or frustrated with a caller on his show. My annoyance isn't an argument, but I figure I ought to throw in my emotional reaction to his podcast.

 

I'm not sure Eric did not act in his own best self interests as I explained above. People who do something that seems irrational or out of their own self interests are often people who are out of options. Corner someone, and that person will lash out, even if it means certain death.

 

I'm not saying anyone should respond in any particular way toward police. I do find it irresponsible for someone who should know that the police are the violent end of the state go on to say that minorities need them. WTF? I have responded very passive, assertive and outright insulting toward cops and similar bureaucrats. I'm still not sure what is the best response. There is a danger in too much passivity. It's all a delicate line to balance on. And sometimes, they are going to get you no matter what you do.

 

I'm always surprised when people express being 'pissed off' with an argument. In all seriousness what does that even mean? Or to what degree does it even matter. Feminists get pissed off with patriarchy all the time, but we're not building a shrine for their contentment are we. I hear 'piss poor' (for want of a better expression) arguments all the time.

 

Stefan's position here is not that Eric Garner did anything wrong. It's that he didn't 'act' in his best 'self interest'. It would be thoroughly irresponsible to publicly put forward the proposition that people "should" ignore threats from policeman. As they have very real life consequences. It's about prevention, not the cure.

[kalmia]

You realize this is a two way street, right? If it's a rule that people will bump into "limits" (whatever that means), then that applies to you as well.

 

If I can be frank, the rest is a lot of frustrated confirmation bias rather than a case built on solid evidence, conveniently mistaking the entire purpose of the video so as to paint Stef as the "abuse apologetic" guy you already attempted previously. Nowhere does Stef support the state. He says in the show and in a follow up with a listener about the show that he as to care about these details because the state is there, and not because he thinks cops are so great. That is, if we accept the reality of the police and state laws, these are the logical conclusions. The purpose being not a defense of the state, but as a clear demonstration that no racial hate crime took place. He's very clear about this.

 

Yes I know I have limits. I know I have overcome limits in my thinking in the past. I can see some of my current limits, and I have a vague sense of limits I still have but can't quite verbalize. 

 

I know my post was lacking in solid evidence. I could spend many hours digging up the exact podcasts and citing the quotes, but I just posted what I remembered. 

 

If condemnation (or at least criticism) is deserved for those who defend mothers who look the other way when a father beats or molests, something Stef has argued many times, then we MUST condemn those who defend cops who look the other way when other cops abuse and enforce unjust "laws". Yes, cops do get to choose what laws they enforce. It is impossible to enforce all of them, so they must choose. Parents who abuse are counting on society defending them and silencing and shunning the victim. Cops are also counting on society defending them and silencing and shunning their victims. Most defense of abusive parents is done for social conformity. Most defense of police is done for social conformity. The parallels are so obvious here. I often listen to Stef's conversations and see the parallels to the state as family. When people talk about their family issues, I try to see where those people in the conversation exist in the state system.

 

His podcasts were about much more than showing no racial hate crime was committed. I am very unconvinced there was any racial hate crime. I think the focus on race (something Stef has played into) has distracted from the very real issue that the police DO go after people of any race who are unable to defend themselves in the court and judicial system. 

[Arbitrary_Signifier]

Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems like Stef argues that law abiding cigarette venders were victimized by Eric Garner.  He does say that the state largely caused the situation but he unnecessarily emphasized Garner's "criminality".  I agree with Kalmia on this one.

[PatrickC]

I'm not sure Eric did not act in his own best self interests as I explained above. People who do something that seems irrational or out of their own self interests are often people who are out of options. Corner someone, and that person will lash out, even if it means certain death.

 

The thing is, it wasn't Eric that Stefan was directing his point too. It was for listeners that find (or might find) themselves in conflict with authorities (albeit illegitimate ones, morally speaking), such as the police. Whatever reason we imagine Eric persisted in his justified insolence of the police, death or personal injury would be an irrational desire on his part. Whether or not he considered it desirable. Which by the way, we can never possibly know of course. It's complete conjecture.

 

This xmas eve call in show goes into this topic in a lot more detail regarding the Garner video Stefan made. Albeit from the racist angle, which is different to your own criticism I realise. But he outlines rather well why he took the position he did in far more detail than I've even shown you myself. Rather long (as usual), but useful regarding the points you've raised in this thread.

 

He does say that the state largely caused the situation but he unnecessarily emphasized Garner's "criminality".  I agree with Kalmia on this one.

 

He does actually retract that statement (regarding Garners criminality), after some thought in the show I posted above.

[Sal9000]

Lets have a look at the situation from an Ancap point of view.

 

Where Garner's actions wrong?

No, he did not violate the NAP. He did not force his customers to buy loosies. The transactions were done voluntarily, hence they are neither good nor bad.

Where the shopkeepers wrong in calling the police?

Yes. They called the police and invoked the gun in the room. They used state force to get rid off competition. The fact that they own shops and that they work hard in their shops does not add legitimacy to their action. If it did, you would have to accept the labour theory of value.
Lets have a look at another scenario. There is a small town with mom and pop shops. Suddenly, Walmart buys a lot and starts building a store. The small shop owners are afraid that their businesses will go bankrupt and thus they use political pull to prevent Walmart from opening the store.
In both cases state power was used for beneficial reasons, violating the NAP.

[shirgall]

Where the shopkeepers wrong in calling the police?

 

If I might advocate for the devil a little here, let's just say they were responding to the fact that the state forced them to collect taxes and was not applying the same force to Garner. They already had the gun in the room pointed at them, and they merely said, "Why aren't you pointing the gun at him?" Unequal application of the law is a form of abuse, too. Sure, it might be jerk behavior because they are redirecting police power at their competition, but that competition was thriving *because* of police power.

 

To make it comical, imagine that next you will harass the shopkeepers for selling aspirin instead of heroin even though heroin has fewer side effects as a painkiller.

[Sal9000]

If I might advocate for the devil a little here, let's just say they were responding to the fact that the state forced them to collect taxes and was not applying the same force to Garner.

 

I would argue that the state applied more force to Garner than to the shopkeepers. Afterall, he was arrested several times for selling loosies.

 

 

 

Sure, it might be jerk behavior because they are redirecting police power at their competition, but that competition was thriving *because* of police power.

 

I don't think that Garner's business model was thriving. You are pretty low on the ladder if you have to sell 'illegal' stuff on the streets.

 

The problem arises when you have a mixed economy, a somewhat free market and state force.

[kalmia]

If I might advocate for the devil a little here, let's just say they were responding to the fact that the state forced them to collect taxes and was not applying the same force to Garner. They already had the gun in the room pointed at them, and they merely said, "Why aren't you pointing the gun at him?" Unequal application of the law is a form of abuse, too. Sure, it might be jerk behavior because they are redirecting police power at their competition, but that competition was thriving *because* of police power.

 

To make it comical, imagine that next you will harass the shopkeepers for selling aspirin instead of heroin even though heroin has fewer side effects as a painkiller.

 

If we assume your argument to be valid, then unequal parenting is a form of abuse too. Stef should beat, molest and scream at Isabella. If he fails to do so, he is giving her an unfair advantage over all the other children who are beaten, molested and yelled at. Maybe the crazy progressives who say every child should be forced to go to a shitty government school as some form of equalizing are onto something.

[kalmia]

There is a lot of bias demonstrated in a person's focus. A podcast about the truth about Eric Garner is mostly focused on defending his attackers. I'm not convinced they are murderers. But why not discuss why a person would get to the age that he did and have sidewalk cigarette selling as his best economic opportunity? There are so many angles to discuss here. But he focusses on defense of those who attacked him.

 

I am reminded of Stefan's discussion of Down and Out in Paris and London where people speculate on why people are transient, non of which are true to the reality of why. My suggestion for Stefan is if he wants to be responsible in his podcasts and plans to keep discussing police, get out of Mississauga and go hang out in some poor American city and see what things are really like. Going on the write ups that are filtered is missing a lot.

[shirgall]

I did admit it was the devil's position.

 

Garner may have been a gnat in the side of the business of the local drugstore, that doesn't change the fact that they had to comply and he was getting away with not. I suspect if they didn't comply (especially as a policy) then the punishment would have been steep fines or loss of business license, not necessarily arrest.

 

Unequal parenting is an interesting question, though. When parents of a child differ in their response to that child, you have to recognize it leads to problems, no? Mom says yes and Dad said no stuff. Different parenting of other children can lead to the "How come my friend Blearga gets to buy new clothes and take a limo the dance and I don't?" kind of situations. Peaceful parents get it a lot less, I bet.

[TheSchoolofAthens]

If I might advocate for the devil a little here, let's just say they were responding to the fact that the state forced them to collect taxes and was not applying the same force to Garner. They already had the gun in the room pointed at them, and they merely said, "Why aren't you pointing the gun at him?" Unequal application of the law is a form of abuse, too. Sure, it might be jerk behavior because they are redirecting police power at their competition, but that competition was thriving *because* of police power.

 

To make it comical, imagine that next you will harass the shopkeepers for selling aspirin instead of heroin even though heroin has fewer side effects as a painkiller.

 

Shirgall, I think you made a very good argument, and quite possibly clarified Stefan's argument, as it wasn't clear to me in the video "Racist Until Proven Innocent." No one is victimizing others by peacefully selling products to customers who buy the products voluntarily - that is what my girlfriend said in response to listening to Stefan's argument. But of course Stefan isn't saying that. He is saying, like you are, that since this business is subjugated to inspections, licensing, regulations, taxes, etc. (the gun is pointed at them) then the business owners are wondering how the hell someone can get away with bypassing inspections, licensing, regulations, taxes, etc. (not have the gun pointed at him.) So the business owners were trying to create equal application of the law. The law is unjust, it is immoral, and it is horrible. Reality shouldn't be like this, but it is like this. If the store owners were anarchists, you know then they wouldn't call the police because they would just think "he's not doing anything morally wrong, smart bastard is dodging regulations, good for him" or something like that. But they obviously wanted equal application of the law, albeit immoral and unjust.

 

I think a follow up to this remark would nice, I'm not saying I am right, I am just confused on this matter. And I really haven't been swayed by reason either way.