Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Should Libertarians Support The Black Lives Matter Movement?

 At the post, Thugs' Lives Matter!!!, I argued that:

As best as I can tell, nearly all of those that have been plugged by coppers are thugs or near thugs AND doing crazy shit when coppers are at the scene.

Being black is not the operative problem, being a thug or near-thug and doing crazy shit is the prescription in almost all cases for being plugged by coppers.

Thus BLM should more accurately be named Thugs' Lives Matter

In the comments to the post, Donxon responded:

 Why don't we ever hear about private security guards blasting these guys? If they're such thugs and out causing so much trouble, wouldn't that happen?

A while back you had a post about how many "violent" offenders in prison were likely just black market entrepreneurs who got pinched taking measures to secure their business or customers against real threats and dangers.

It is tempting to support those being shot by the police, since, as libertarians, we know that government police enforce many laws that wouldn't exist in a libertarian society. However, this doesn't mean everything police do is wrong. 

To deny that thugs are out on the street, robbing, stealing and looting is just not dealing with reality. 

The thugs are out there, and to the degree coppers get them off the streets the better.

I would prefer a municipal bus system that was completely private and I have no problem with those promoting such, but in the meantime, I am not going to call for the shutting down of the municipal system without a replacement.

Likewise, I am not going to advocate the immediate shutdown of air traffic control systems without a replacement just because it is now run by the government.

The idea behind advocating for libertarianism is to introduce a more civil society, not the destruction of society. This is not what the Black Lives Matter movement is about. It is at its core advocating for the total destruction of Western Civilization and defunding the police is part of their advocacy. They do not want to defund the police to introduce a private sector police but as a part of their overall desire for taking over the power structure and destroying everything else.

We live during a period when lines are blurred between what brings us towards liberty and what does not. But I just don't see how supporting thugs over government police is going to bring us closer to a libertarian world. Top BLM officials, who are about destroying liberty and private property, know exactly what they are doing by going full out 100% against police and promoting rioting in the streets.

As for my post about violent drug-related "criminals," at no point did I suggest how many violent "criminals" were in prison for drug-related crimes as Doxon states I did. I simply said that violent "criminals" who were violent because they were protecting a business that would be free to operate in a libertarian world should be set free from a libertarian perspective, the way many call for the release of those in prison on non-violent drug-related "crimes."

In other words, under the present structure of society, though I would prefer it being more in line with PPS, I did, by implication in the post, support the police and the current courts of law on how thugs should be handled.

Here is the post, look for yourself: The Case for Releasing Violent Drug "Criminals".

I  made it clear in the post:

Now, I hasten to add that I am not advocating for the release of true psychopaths and other depraved killers but just those who can be viewed as simply acting in self-defense from a libertarian perspective.

If the BLM movement was about privatizing the police so that the system would support liberty and private property that would be fine but that is not their intention. They are not friends of liberty. They want the collapse of liberty and civilization. Their goal is to gain power to introduce a more oppressive system where they are in control.

As for the question: Why aren't private security guards blasting these guys?

The simple answer is because thugs don't go into malls and stores to mug people. This is Jane Jacobs 101.

They operate, almost exclusively, in the darkness when people are alone.

Indeed, security consultants tell banks that the best security they can have at night for their ATMs is lots of lighting.

Black Lives Matter is a very dangerous movement if one favors liberty and a private property society.

It is a trap to support them and be 100% anti-police.

Of course, as I say, we live in a very complex world right now where lines are blurred so at the same time it makes no sense to support thugs, it should be recognized that in the current oppressive world we live in, the existence of so many thugs on the streets keeps coppers very busy so that the coppers have less time to harass the rest of us.

But, bottom line, all this madness comes about (including thugs who are raised nearly 100% within the government system) because of government. The sooner it is understood that a private property society is the solution the better.



  1. "I would prefer a municipal bus system that was completely private and I have no problem with those promoting such, but in the meantime, I am not going to call for the shutting down of the municipal system without a replacement.

    Likewise, I am not going to advocate the immediate shutdown of air traffic control systems without a replacement just because it is now run by the government."

    -- I disagree with this. While there is a state-provided service, it makes it very difficult (although not impossible) for private actors to effectively compete, and too easy for the public to support the state provider. If municipal bus services were to cease, then yes, there would be some inconvenience for a bit, but this would create a situation much more conducive to private solutions. Similarly with the FAA: Air travel might cease for a bit, but then private solutions would likely abound.

    1. You miss the point, BLM is not about allowing private solutions. It is about destroying current services and preventing free market alternatives.

    2. I didn't miss the point re BLM; I was only pushing back on your specific comments that I quoted in case they were taken as a broader statement of libertarian strategy.

    3. All while buying big fancy, private property houses.

      These people are not communists. They call themselves communists because it helps them acquire more property. They're LARPing. It's a stupid trick for stupid people.

      Similarly, the cops are not there to protect you or your property. They're just LARPing, again because it helps them acquire more property.
      The cops rob, murder and kidnap far more people than any street gang could ever hope to.

      99% of the street crime would evaporate over night if the cops simply stopped enforcing control laws.
      The principal dynamic between civilians, cops and thugs is that the cops disarm the civilians so that the thugs can rob them so that the civilians feel threatened and put up with the cops robbing them even more. The cops and the thugs may as well be working together to rob you and split the proceeds. The idea that the cops are on the civilians' side here is bad comedy.

      10 years from now we will have to remind people what BLM was, and tell goofy stories about how these rich old black ladies used to throw bricks though windows. We won't have to remind anyone about the cops, because the cops will still be there.

  2. Lew Rockwell introduced me to the statement, we are not against governance but we are against Government.

    Similarly we are not against policing and law and order but some of the laws that governments have policed. In this respect we seem to have an alliance with BLM. If BLM leaders are against the current powers-that-should-not-be they are not against them because they are centralized powers where the cronies and the corrupt mingle and scheme. There goals do not include permanently ridding civilization of power centers. The goal of the BLM elite is to be as big a part of the world power elite as possible.

    The Useful Idiots on both sides are being used by BLM. The cops – who use horrible tactics to enforce horrible laws - on one side and the BLM rank and file – a lot of which are ignorant virtue signaling whitey’s - on the other.

    The tiny bit of our objectives that intersect with BLM doesn’t come close to warranting support for BLM.

  3. Lies and Violence are the primary means of control used by governments. (Money is both lies & violence.) The Liberty movement has been entirely occupied with discrediting and pointing out all the Lies. They are Hydra - cut down one, two more appear. But it keeps us occupied (just like it does for the people who believe them).

    Seems like we'd make more progress toward that hypothetical libertarian society if we were actively reducing the actual violence. Why us? Most people consent to their own slavery (https://mises.org/library/milgram-experiment) and they don't value Liberty over Safety like we do (https://mises.org/library/ben-franklin-liberty).

    We wouldn't shut down the existing system without a replacement, but why aren't we actively replacing the police with private security? I mean us actively introducing a more civil society. I mean, grass-roots, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, business-by-business, lobbying for them to provide for their own security.

    If we truly believe the free market is superior, we should make our case to the individuals who would benefit most (https://www.thecut.com/2021/02/the-us-is-seeing-a-massive-spike-in-anti-asian-hate-crimes.html). It might not be that tough of a sell to show how they are not being protected and how privately paid security (could be volunteer, or crowdsourced/crowdfunded) would clearly be superior. (https://tomwoods.com/ep-597-can-the-private-sector-protect-against-crime-this-case-study-will-blow-your-mind/)

    Is anybody doing this? With all these peaceful protestors causing havoc is there anybody actively trying to reduce the violence? Are cops?

    And if we advocated for this clearly superior, free market, private, security paradigm, not just talk about it theoretically, but actively market the options available, including providing instructions and network resources for the DIY crowd, on an individual basis, wouldn't we be at least making progress toward that hypothetical libertarian society?

    And once the people find out we don't need their security, and we've reduced a significant amount of private sector (thug) violence (because duh, the free market excels at giving people what they want), we might be better able to point out that the only thing government security is good for is extortion on behalf of the government and to maintain the monopoly of the means to control us.

    1. some excellent ideas there, thanks!

  4. BLM is the new foment discord vehicle. They are far and away the most dangerous domestic terrorist group seen in the states for decades. They are not to be played with. Now that Chavin was found guilty lets hope the just go back to killing each other to continue to thin the herd.

    1. For sure; it's all about breaking apart everything, that's for certain.