Right-Wing Postmodernism: Our Perception of Law

Reminder: The law in its current form is only unethical because it is promulgated by the state and enforced coercively. It is not unethical on its own. The state does not need to exist for us to know that murder, rape, larceny, racism, hard drugs, and assault are destructive because we can enforce them on our own.

Police only serve as an antithesis to liberty because they pledge to enforce said laws qua violence. Corruption aside, it is ordained that they are not above said law and most officers live under the same conviction as their fellow man while off duty. If the state were to be abolished, they would adapt.

As oxymoronic and statist as this may seem, people show signs of self-governance by abiding by the common law and still living freely. Compliance is not a sign of weakness if it comes with strong signs of malleability; the meek are not weak. If left to their own devices, they would become prosperous and provide for their families whilst respecting property rights (i.e. not vandalizing private property, refraining from smoking in nonsmoking areas, limiting the urge to steal to covetousness, etc.), intervening in high risk situations, defending the defenseless, and respecting the rights of others to live unless they feel they are under duress, just to name a few.

All this considered, it is imperative to distinguish those who choose to live outside the law (anarchists), those who are above the law (lobbyists, crony capitalists, big banks), and those who have no regard for the law (criminals) from each other.

Living Outside

The definitive anarchist is self-reliant. He chooses to live on the grid, meaning he expresses his grievances with the state by removing himself from the realm of state control. He avoids taxation by reserving himself to a locus where a per capita taxes are nonexistent. If he is a post-leftist, poststructuralist, or communist, while there, he purchases land for lump sum from a non-anarchist resident who is fine with paying a property tax and upon his newly purchased land, builds his home, grows or forages for his own food, electrifies his home without utilizing state services if he deems electricity a necessity, and covertly collects rainwater in a tank or well for hydration and plant growth.

If he is a capitalist, he would take the same route to life on the fringe, but not without establishing a stock portfolio and accumulating liquidity to avoid use of fiat currency. His lifestyle, of course, would differ from that of the anarchist left. He would still build his own home, if he values labor and wishes to be conservative with his input or is an astute carpenter, or hire someone to do it for him neither of the two apply. He’d meet all his needs through the black market, by raising livestock, and harvesting food, and electrify his home on his own circuit, and collect rainwater for hydration and plant growth.

All this is to say that the anarchist steps outside of the realm of state rule by relinquishing his use of state services, without harming those around him and living hermetically. In this instance, he is not breaking the law, because it does not apply to him. As far as the state is concerned, this man does not exist, no matter how many documentaries Vice Magazine films about his life.

Living Above

I have believed for the longest time that corporations live under anarchy at the expense of other people, and while there is some semblance of truth to this, such a sentiment is ultimately false. One cannot live as if the state were nonexistent at their own expense and that is exactly how corporations do it. One cannot lobby for deregulation without first bribing government with their profits. They wouldn’t utilize tax havens or make use of tax loopholes if the government didn’t hold them under duress. Agribusinesses would not claim ownership of agricultural production without state-sanctioned commodity programs indirectly contributing to their income in an attempt to supplement farmers. The subprime loans that contributed to the global financial crisis would not have been distributed, had the government not pressured banks and government-sponsored enterprises into selling mortgage-backed securities to housing investors.

The common denominator is government—more specifically, a state economy—which allows and commands for large institutions and financial enterprises to be complicit in mutual dependency, despite their ability to self-sustain, or due to the lack thereof. While this is unjust and it can be agreed that businesses that cannot sustain themselves should not exist at all, their act is only criminal in a subjective sense, rather than in accordance with common rule of law. Their wealth outweighs state power, but when we cut out the middleman, they have no power outside of their property.

Unfortunately, this means they also go unpunished for their complicity in the appropriation of funds at the expense of the common man. All that is left is the question as to why oligarchs would lobby on Capitol Hill at the expense of the public and the answer is one of assurance: They just want money. Without the state, there would be no subsidiary options available to them, which require more responsibility and self-sufficiency on their part.

Government is quite possibly the most parasitic institution in existence. It only exists out of external necessity. It needs the poor to be dependent upon it and the middle class to fund its programs, just as it needs the rich and the financial sector to stabilize it and is ready to bail them out when they are met with deficits. It cannot exist without the assistance of those it rules. Until there is awakening amongst all classes, it is here to stay.

Living Against

Criminals are often fallaciously seen as those who are awakened to stately injustice, and anarchists often praise their so-called righteous indignation. There is no semblance of truth to this, but their is a semblance of justification for their outrage. Granted, it is fabricated but in some instances, reactions to government tyranny in the form of law enforcement does bear a striking resemblance to self-defense.

Shooting at police, for instance, is a means of self-defense when viewed from an anarchist lens, but we cannot pretend that police are called to act just to harass civilians. Civilians are rarely the victims when police intervene. The victims of the criminals are the real victims, and usually, the police acting as a retributory third party to punish those who violate common law, law that would still exist in a free society.

However, said free society does not yet exist and yes, the police, as stewards of the state, are complicit in obstructing progress toward statelessness, but they aren’t aware of this. They do not think on the same level of anarchists, just as other statists don’t see things from our perspective, and thus, remain dependent upon police.

Demonizing police epitomizes collectivist infiltration of libertarianism. For instance, it has eventually led to the infantilization of black people. The disproportionate rate of incarceration for drug possession amongst blacks is put into sharp focus, while the outstanding crimes they commit prior to confiscation go completely ignored.

Our distaste for police and authority, while justified, has led to us praising actions of violence that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable in a free society.

Conclusion

Law enforcement officers are people who have found their niche that has unfortunately, directed their attention toward assuming authority over their fellow man, but their current position in the workforce poses a good argument for their position in a free society. With police being in such high supply, their line of work would be a viable economy of scale in which to invest, and thus, easy to privatize.

The officers’ line of work is what is inherently evil, not the officers, themselves, and labeling them as such is dogmatically equivalent to the social contract of statism, the original sin of Christianity, and the toxic masculinity of feminism.