BadCop Inc - a definition of a police state

In a free society, that is in a stateless society, a free market would exist, for every kind of service, which businesses could address in whatsoever way they considered a competitive manner. Some organisations may offer policing services on a subscription basis, some may work through insurance providers and perhaps, more likely, an unimaginable solution would yet be found to whatever need for policing services existed. That model would then constantly evolve and improve; driven by demand and consumer choice.

A policing organisation that started to behave as we see cops funded via stolen money (taxation) behave, would most likley find their customers rapidly departed to a better provider - I mean, for starters: who wants to pay for a gang of bullies conducting themselves in such a inefficient and costly manner. Such poor public relations would backfire unless, that is, they come to your door and Taser you if you do not pay for their protection racket.

If they did Taser you for not paying it would be clear you needed the services of a better operation who would start their contract with you by getting the ugly Taser and theft cops, BadCop Inc, off your back. A business that intended to force you to place your business with them would need to have a far more subtle method of capturing and retaining your business.

One good way of making you stay with 'BadCop Inc' would be to provide their nasty violence based monopolistic service free of charge. That would have the effect of making it very difficult for widespread competition to get started as they would need to fund their service in some way. Conversely BadCop Inc. could fund their service through a charge made on everything everyone sells including everyone's time they sell at 'work'. BadCop could simultaneously take a slice on the earnings of everything everybody buys too.

But nonetheless people would not be happy. They would quickly realise that BadCop Inc. was just running the mother of all protection rackets. BadCop would have to take more money and provide, monopolistically, more supposed 'benefits' or their 'customers' would realise they were just being enslaved. So BadCop could open schools, to indoctrinate their public from the get-go, allow their 'customers' to vote for who, from a list, the next BadCop boss will be, BadCop could build roads so they can get about and collect their tithe. BadCop could see their friend's business' made money from the enterprise too and could tell these corporate cooperators what to do, such as making sure the papers, radio and TV never tell the enslaved public any sort of truth.

With all this enterprise at their hands BadCop would still have one big problem: it would slowly but surely rot from the inside out and the public would eventually see for themselves its ugliness and its threat. To counter this BadCop Inc. would have to continuously stupefy their enslaved public, make them believe BadCop is essential for humanity, and, whilst keeping their threat of violence always visible, cast themselves and their regime of violence as being utterly legitimate. Make people believe in them. Surround themselves with ceremony, ritual, costumes and badges. Make it a cult. This may be an inefficient and expensive business plan but it is the only viable option if BadCop wants to remain in business.

See also: The Nine Principles of Policing

PS.  Watch the Lego Movie - better: buy it!

The Nobody Who Rules Rules Anybody Rule.

The natural laws which exist without the rule of man are fundamental, determined by nature, and are therefore universal in their application.  The core of natural law in relation to human social order is that a man has the right to his own being, that is: to own himself, he is his own property.  If you do not agree to that stop here and reflect or ignore the lot as you wish.

'The state' is a violation of this fundamental precept from the get-go!    The justification for the legitimacy of 'the state' is dependent on the paradigms of the 'consent of the governed' or on the 'divine right of kings'.  Both are false.  The will of the people cannot truthfully exist because there is no such thing, in nature, as 'the people'.  This is an invented collective, a rule of man and not a natural law.  Where a group of people decide to co-operate in some way, that is their privilege, but they have no more right to co-opt the individual who does not agree with their choice than he has to co-opt them all to act as he dictates.

'Human society' generally understands better today that the  'divine right of kings' is false than they understand that the 'consent of the governed' is false too.  The 'consent of ALL the governed' would not be false but that is not what is currently on offer in any land across the world.

When advocating that a man does not rape a woman it is not a legitimate argument to question: 'how will he sire a child if he does not rape' or 'does that child not have a right to be conceived'.  When something is identified as wrong it is not the duty of those identifying the problem to know with certainty what the outcomes will be if the crime is prevented.  It was not the duty of the abolitionist to explain precisely how sugar cane and cotton would be harvested in the future without slave labour.  And if the abolitionist described the modern farming market, methods and equipment that has been developed since he would be thought insane.

One thing is certain.  If enough individual people work towards finding better ways to do things, better ways will be found, shared, developed and widely exploited.  That is evident throughout the history of humanity.  It is also evident that this approach is better than a top-down dictation as, for example, the disaster of Soviet farming was found to be.

If people have property in themselves, their own body, it follows that they too have property in the physical product of their endeavours.  The work they do they own, that which they exchange their work for becomes their own, that which they own and then work on, develop and add value to, is theirs too.  The land they buy with the product of their labour or unencumbered homestead, they own.   A man can dictate what happens to property he owns, so long as it does not harm the property of others, but a man cannot dictate what happens to property he does not own except where it is causing harm to his property.

All resources are either the property of somebody or nobody.  If property is not utilised, the property of nobody, and it is understood there is no such thing as the false paradigms of the 'consent of the governed' or the 'rule of kings' people can come and make use of that property as they wish.  But would they?

It is improbable people would come to live in a place where they were not suited, welcomed or where the resources, economic or physical, were valuable but not already well utilised.  When people do come is when they see beneficial advantage over what they have in the place they come from.  Sometimes that is because they see they can serve a need that is not being well served and that is only to the general advantage otherwise that need would already be well served. 

Often people come because they are drawn into take advantage of the social benefits provided to them by 'the state' in control of the region, benefits that are taken from the local population, via the coercive threat of the use of force in taxation, and paid to the incoming people.  Welfare holds the poor in the grip of poverty, encourages immigration at the expense of the middle income earners but to the utter benefit of a small wealthy elite oligarchy who both own the 'means of wealth production' and influence the perpetuation and actions of 'the state' endlessly to their absolute benefit.

Joe Soap has the right to shun whosoever he wishes and along with his band of pals they can get together and shun all they like within the collective boarders of their properties.  Shut away they may shun away.  But Joe Soap does not have the right to impinge his view on a 'wider human society' because, like 'the people', 'human society' does not actually exist.  It is a collective term for human individuals gathered together but it does not allow a majority of those individuals any more right than they possess individually to impinge their view onto other individuals with whom they may not agree (but who are not harming their right to their property).

If 'who rules who' is the issue from which history has a catalogue of people struggling to defend values, lands and societies from those who want to supplant, enslave or exterminate them; is it not time we looked for the issue behind this age old curse?   Since it is invalid for any individual or group of individuals to rule over any other individual or group of individuals (who are not harming your property) the solution, by default, must simply be that 'nobody should rule anybody' and to therefore end the cult belief in the false paradigm of 'the state'.

"Forward, Joe Soap's army, marching without fear, with our brave commander, safely in the rear."

People want to use the power of the religious cult of 'the state' to enforce their world view, wants and wishes. The girl getting married wants a legally binding 'marriage contract' to make it less likely the father of her child will just push off and never pay for the raising of his children (and the feller wants his wife to commit to not sleeping with other men and dupe him into paying for a child not his). The voter prays for a new school, road, hospital built in their town at the expense of tax-payers in other towns who do not get the same. And people wish for the idea of what is 'their property' expanded to include all 'state' controlled property and have influence on what can happen to that, the same, by usurping the power of the state to do their personal bidding.

I question: what gives one set of people living in one part of the world divided by imaginary lines, (drawn a century ago on a map by an elite oligarchy of psychopathic priestly manipulators), apparently no right to visit, live, work or invest on the other side of that illusionary divide?

I believe Joe Soap is fully entitled to say he does not want, for whatever reason, whosoever in his bed, home, garden, farm, business or property. That is his business and if he wants to, say, run a hotel that bans Japanese people, transvestite people, tall people and smart people that is up to him. If there is a market for having a hotel that does not have such a dull and muddled outlook on what is necessary for commercial success Joe will never get to own a chain of hotels around the world.

If a whole island is owned (roads, beaches, the lot) by a conglomerate of Joe Soap's mates: they can do the same. There will also be places in the world where everyone is welcome to come and spend, flourish and thrive. Backwaters like Joe's Island will soon enough become a thing of the past.

But whilst there is the power of the state, which will always be usurped to do the bidding of individual's preferences and xenophobic based beliefs, there there will always be a perversion, a corruption, on the form of balanced human societal structure that would rapidly manifest without it, that is without 'the state'.

Know Who the Enemy Actually Is!

The thing to remember is it is not government, 'the state', that is the enemy. 'The state' does not exist, it is a fiction, a belief, a cult. To protest that 'the state' is out of control is to simply share in the delusion.

People individually do not have the right behave in such a way as they think do when they believe they are functioning within the remit of the fiction of 'the state'. Where do these people think the right of 'the state' comes from to act in the way no individual could rightfully behave? No group of individuals can appropriate legitimate powers they do not individually or collectively possess.

There is no mending this false belief system. 'The state' will always lead to usurpation and abuse - that is what it is conceived for regardless of the idealogical spin perpetrated to fluff the gullible. Know the enemy or at least know who the enemy actually is: the enemy is all people who believe in the cult of 'the state' - actors and subjects.