There Is No Greater Cowardice Than Outsourcing Responsibility of Self
Written by Wade Williams.
In this age of increased awareness of police brutality, one must ask the question, “Why are police necessary?” The short answer is a simple one. They are not. When asking the question, “What do police do?” you’ll find the standard answer is an odd one — “Why, they protect us, of course.” You can take that answer at face value, or you can ask yourselves two things — “Who are they protecting us from, and why?”
The idea is that the police protect us, the citizenry, from criminals. That it is their responsibility to protect us, and that we should be grateful for it. My question to you is — why on earth would my protection, or security, be the responsibility of any other human being?
Short answer — my security is not the responsibility of any other human being. My security is my own responsibility.
However, we’ve reached a point in society where the majority of the citizenry would choose to outsource this responsibility, at a fee crowd-funded by us all — whether we prefer to outsource this responsibility or not. As a result, there are quite literally over twenty states with legislation regarding how we are allowed to defend ourselves. By limiting our means of self-defense, our reliance on individuals without these limitations (i.e., police) is a foregone conclusion.
This “duty to retreat,” as it is often called, is one of the grossest misuses of perceived authority we bear witness to. As a populace, we are effectively saying, “The individual is unable to protect oneself, but that group of individuals is definitely able to protect themselves as well as me and all other individuals.” This logic is obviously ludicrous, but we’ll diagram it out to really drive home the point.
You see, there is no logical reason that a group of individuals, regardless of what shirt they put on before work, or what piece of metal they pin to said shirt, would have more rights than the individuals themselves. Human rights do not operate by mob rule. By advocating for a group of individuals to have more rights to self defense than yourself, you are saying, “I do not wish to defend myself. I want others to do it for me, and I want everyone to help me pay for it.”
This isn’t just blatantly selfish. It is the single most obvious example of cowardice we run into in our daily lives.
As Doug Stanhope once famously said,
“You are born free, you got fucked out of half of it, and you wave a flag celebrating it!”
I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to put down the flag.
___________________________
Wade Williams is a voluntaryist from Orlando, Florida, covering wide-ranging topics from ethics, finance, primitive survival techniques, combat sports, Major League Soccer, the National Basketball Association, morality and anarchy. You can follow him on Twitter.
Now let’s apply the same rational to health care…
Hey Tim, thanks for reading. How do you mean, apply the same rationale to health care?
I would also love to hear how you can apply the logic to health care. Looking forward to Tim’s thoughts.
Where are the homeless kids, the little old ladies, the mentally handicapped adults — people who can’t really be said to be able to protect themselves — in this world you envision?
We, the “sheep-dogs” will protect those who can’t protect themselves. Just as in the earlier days in England, when the bobbies carried nothing more than their nightsticks, the armed populace was required to go to the aid of the constabulary if needed. This is well before the disarming of the populace, of course.
I always like to apply these sorts of questions to our current setup to see how they hold up. For example, if you’re walking down the street and see someone beating up a child, or an elderly person, or someone with a disability, would you stand there watching this crime unfold while dialing 911?
I have a very close friend who’s a cop. I’ve asked him at times how often he gets to calls while the problem is still unfolding, and his answer as he’s pursued his career has been unchanged.
“Virtually never.”
If you want to know how police are unable to protect us, go have lunch with a cop and discuss how things work. It’s quite eye opening.
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” If that.
Wade, your question is a good one, but it only addresses one kind of problem (violence) these individuals face. And it only addresses the problem *as* it is happening. And let’s not assume that all the other “sheep-dogs” are as righteous as we are.
A lot of people would watch the beating or ignore it, without doing a thing about it. They don’t want to “get involved.” If I wasn’t able to end it with my hands, only then would I use my gun.
“…if you’re walking down the street and see someone beating up a child, or an elderly person, or someone with a disability, would you stand there watching this crime unfold while dialing 911?”
Depends. Is the attacker armed? Am I? Because in too many states, I sure as shit am not allowed to be. I may want to help, but I’m not suicidal.
The same place they are now: relying on others to help them in their time of need.
People in general, relatives, etc., protect them, and they protect themselves as best they can. That’s the only answer, unless you are advocating the alternative which is corrupt, totalitarian, police-state.
The picture used is from Oleg Volk. Please attribute appropriately for its use:
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/32880-5/long-range_2789.jpg
Unfortunately I have no control over the title picture — the diagram in the body is all I submitted. Thanks for reading, Robert.
I LOVE this article!!! Individual sovereignty has all but died, and government butting into all types of individual lives and businesses is destroying most of what has always been the best parts of what we call America. Government is designed to take care of the nation, NOT individuals, yet they seem to do a lousy job of caring for the nation……could be government prefers to control US people because the nation is too difficult to control.
Thanks for reading, Tasine! I’m glad you enjoyed it.
If someone breaks into your home, whom do you call? Keep in mind, you want to call someone who has a large database of criminals and their fingerprints.
If someone is breaking into your home, why would you be fretting over whether or not the people you’re calling for help have kept records of people who have committed crimes? That would be a silly thing to worry over when your life is in immediate danger.
And why call anyone when you can take care of the issue yourself??
Dalan, sorry to mislead you. In my question, I meant that the intruder has already left. I’d like to hear your response now.
Although I intended that you should consider that the intruder already left, I could address your last question, assuming the intruder is still in the house: You say “you can take care of the issue yourself.” Sure, you can and I can. But how about that little old lady or the developmentally disabled kid? There are such people in the world.
I would add that police don’t do any actual “protecting.” The role of the executive branch is to apprehend a person after they have committed a crime, i.e., you’ve already been murdered so now the police can act to arrest your murderer.
Civilization has progressed since the lawless wild west or Scotland’s ancient self-protecting war-like clans hiding in castles. Improve law enforcement and strengthen communities. Please don’t take us backwards. The old times were not good times. Keep a gun in your house, if it makes you feel safer, but don’t proclaim an ideology that could lead to weakened rule of law!
The old times had laws also many of which made it not so good times. None of the laws nor the police we have help improve our life. The laws saying it is a crime to steal are meaningless when theft still happens. No entity steals more money from more people than the government and the laws it passes increase crime as they decrease the individual’s natural right to prevent and pinish crime.
We are living in a lawless condition. A complete abscence of so called laws would make us more secure than we have been in the last 400 years.
End the FED? End all nations!!
There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.
The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.
Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.
Nanny state laws don’t make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don’t need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don’t need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a cellphone is illegal. People don’t investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.
The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.
Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.
Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.
Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?
Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren’t there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn’t people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn’t people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn’t people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn’t attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Having no laws doesn’t mean actions have no consequences.
If there is no victim, there is no crime.
We don’t need thousands of laws when we only need 10.
Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.
Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?
Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn’t banning everything sound like the opposite of freedom?
Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don’t people realize that freedom is a two way street?
If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.
If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.
If you allow others to swear then you can, too.
If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.
Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.
Who wants to live in a prison?
Think. Question everything.
I am with you on principle, but if history is our guide then you must realize that not everyone is suited or is interested in “protecting”. I certainly agree that all persons have an inherent right to protect their persons and property, but who is going to handle the drunk drivers, the domestic and non domestic issues, or the street hustler/drug dealer/pimp/street crime? Untrained citizens? While i believe in the concept of civilian sheepdogs, modern law enforcement encompasses so much more than just “protecting yourself”.
Where is moderation. Common sense. Seems a person has to be a Marxist r an Ayn Rand. My opinion is that when a person is too far to either the contrained thinkers or the unconstrained thinkers they, by dint of their position are ill informed.
The same argument can be said about governmenment!
Mommy and Dаddy huggeԀ the twins because it was ɡetting time tto geet to bed.
?Mommy thinks the very best thing about God is he gave me
these two little rascalѕ аnd theyre the beѕst factor in Mommy?s worⅼd.?
She mentioned cuddling annd tickling each boys.
That was thе type of faｃtor mommies at all
times say. Thhe giggled and hugged Mommy annd have been aⅼmost able to go to their bunk bdds ᴡhhen Lеee said.
The best way to foreign trade images from iphone 4 to Laptop or computer?
Typically the tutorial exercise indicates anyone number of solutions to duplicate and transfer footage through apple iphone to Windows 7/8/10/Vista/XP.
Fantastic by using iPhone 7 (Plus) in addition to
os 10.
Through an I phone, we could hook terrific graphics when using
the inherent iSight photographic camera, specifically together with the brand new iPhone Several Plus everyone
is actually that come with getting images featuring its implied twice cameras.
All of us additionally give up photographs through applications, for instance, Chrome as well as Mail on the apple iphone.
On the subject of bringing in images by iphone 4 so
that you can House windows Computer system, you’ll
have to use a snappy session. This article explains to you personally 4 approaches to
trade images out of iPhone to Windows Laptop, which includes
a couple of standard ways of acquire Camera Jiggle
footage coming from iphone 4 in order to Microsoft windows 7/8, and yet another way of transfer every
one of the photographs (rising Digicam Roll, Photo Stream, Photograph Selection and Collections photos) so that
you can PC with a single break.