”ŽI know first hand some people who were friended by [redacted] and were then attacked for saying the wrong thing. Now I’m not talking about George’s run in or my own. I’m talking about non-activists, lets say those who are at the starting point of walking down the road to where we are. In two cases this happened with women, one was my wife. My wife loves liberty as much as I do, but (thankfully) she is not as hard core in absolutes as a black and white guy like [redacted] is. That, plus she is often talking to friends that are no where close to where she is politically. Along comes [redacted] or someone like him to beat her and her friends up and what has our side gained? Noooothing. In fact, if anything we have lost ground as we are all going to be labeled as jerks, or worse, and these newer people are going to look at what we are saying even less than they would have. This is why we have to police our own, and no one should ever defend someone just because they are on the same team. If they are wrong they are wrong and should be called out on it. – Rich Piotrowski
“Police our own.” This combination of words will provoke an immediate visceral reaction in many libertarians I know. But it’s not such a crazy idea. Even in a stateless society, a policing function will be needed. The market itself is a policing function. People inevitably break rules, some inevitably find harmful shortcuts. No one is perfect. In a stateless society, I don’t think cops will be like they are now in the US.
I expect they will be voluntary cops, voluntarily-funded and enforcing rules we voluntarily agreed to. I also don’t see them using a lot of excessive force or being jerks. That will only lead to large arbitration settlements, lost jobs and ruined reputations.
So, when I talk about policing our own, I’m talking about market action. I’m not talking about anything even remotely like what the state does.
Why is there a need to police our own? Maybe you object to the words ‘our’ and ‘own.’ Other people in the liberty community don’t belong to me. They’re not “ours” to do with as we please. Absolutely correct. But the impression they make on outsiders is ours to keep, whether they like us or not. People generalize. It’s an intellectual shortcut of questionable value that people often use. The actions of one of us can, and do, reflect on the rest of us.
There’s a surprising amount of cliquishness in the liberty community. Long ago, I suppose, we reached that magic number after which cliques are required in order for stable social relationships to proceed.
But there is a feature of cliques that needs to be resisted. “I know him so he’s ok, no matter what he does.” The thought may not be as explicit as that, but it is certainly the result.
Lying is a form of fraud, which is a form of aggression. Lying is a violation of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Rich is right. And if we can’t call out a liar in our midst, I don’t know what this libertarian project is all about. If this is just another movement that uses principle as convenient wallpaper, then it’s all a lie and we’re all hypocrites.
I’m no hypocrite. What about you?
6 replies on “Why We Must Police our Own”
What movement specifically are you referring to? It seems pretty scattered to me.
The liberty/libertarian/an-cap/voluntaryist one.
I have no desire or need for “police” why?
Hypothetically as an IT guy lets just say you do not train in self defense, or the martial approach of guarding yourself as much as say, IT work – in this case I can agree that you may need to hire someone to assist in protecting you.
However, lets say (hypothetically) that I devote 20-25% of my available time to training in the defense of self and my family and property, lets just say that my “education” as it were is in “criminal justice” as it were, and lastly lets say that I see facts where you may see “truth”.
Would you still try to “enforcing rules we voluntarily agreed to” I mean how does everyone always agree to these rules?
What if I as a stranger, non-aggressing and wishing to trade with individuals in this community come upon the scene, are you going to enforce your “rules” upon me arbitrarily or are you going to ask me nicely to sit down and then recite your rules (maybe 3 maybe thousands, as it tends to do it would grow of course)
What if I decline the opportunity to waste my valuable day with “rules” and the recitation of such, will you then enforce them against me?
Here is a simple approach and it ensures there is NO NEED for “rules” whether they be “voluntary” or not.
DO NO HARM – wow right?
And I will tell you what George, if you should want training in self defense so that you do not feel it necessary to hire a gun, I could always use education in IT approaches…lets trade!
Robert Murphy has a fine book called Chaos Theory on the topic of private law.
http://morelibertynow.com/opinion/murphy-private-law-market-anarchy
So no trade then?
George, I have written hundreds of articles on the topic, under my name and under psuedonyms – I have read thousands of books and have thousands of hours of training- a simple google of my name proves this-
The question remains, who says your laws are right, who enforces them, who decides who understands them fully.
And btw- you are unwilling to trade ? :)
Have you read the article I linked you to? It’s a summary of Murphy’s very short and enjoyable book. I wrote the article. Does it not make sense to you?