Will Grigg, Name One That Didn’t

In a recent post at LewRockwell.com, William Norman Grigg said of the recent cop killings in Las Vegas;

No genuine “revolution” can be carried out through aggressive violence, or led by people who mimic the worst behavior of those who act in the name of the murderous fiction called the State. This approach is morally abhorrent and strategically suicidal. The state subsists on aggression: We should be starving the beast, rather than feeding it.

Of course, Grigg fails to mention that police are sworn to “uphold the law” and that doing so is itself almost purely aggression by any libertarian’s definition. As I’ve pointed out, and any consistent non-aggressionist has to agree, it’s hard for a soldier in the war on drugs to call himself innocent. We wouldn’t blame Iraqi’s for shooting at the uniforms of the men who ransacked his home and murdered his brother.

William Norman Grigg

William Norman Grigg

More importantly, if this is Grigg’s definition of aggression, and no “genuine revolution” can be carried out this way. I wonder if Grigg thinks a genuine revolution has ever taken place? I’d have a hard time coming up with a historical reference to any revolution that didn’t involve people killing government agents. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s part and parcel of the deal.

And don’t any of you give me any crap about a “democratic revolution” because that’s all it will be, crap. Libertarians learned everything they needed to know about “democracy” at the Republican convention in 2012. Oh, and by the way, democracy, as we’ve seen, is far from peaceful.

If you don’t want a revolution, then say so. That’s a perfectly valid position for one to take. I’m certainly not endorsing shooting up pizzerias or Walmarts. I don’t think meth heads are going to restore the bloody republic by going on suicide missions. But if the intellectual integrity and moral consistency are strengths of libertarianism, then you’re the ones feeding the beast when you play stupid word games like this.

If you want a revolution, that means bloodshed. If it’s a successful revolution, that means more bloodshed for government agents than free people. Right now in the United States there are roughly 245 police for every 100,000 people, but police kill civilians at a ratio greater than 4:1. There are more military conflicts going on than I can keep track of. We haven’t even begun to feel the effects of Obamacare. With every day that passes, the government grows more powerful, and in the minds of the electorate, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush look like reasonable ways to follow up on all of this.

So if somebody else has a suggestion on how to solve this problem, I’m more than open to hearing it! But if you don’t have a solution, if you’re one of the countless libertarian content producers who is all too happy to let this continue in perpetuity, just for the sake of maintaining their role as prominent complaint departments, can you please stop interfering with those of us who are trying to fix this?

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. I don’t want to die a slave.

Update 4:50pm – Will has responded here,

Now, I use the term respond kind of loosely. He didn’t actually name a “genuine revolution” that took place without killing government agents. Instead he pointed out, as I suspected, that he doesn’t want a “genuine revolution”.

More than a few “revolutions” have been carried out in that fashion, all of them eventually leading to the consolidation of power in the hands of the most ruthless clique, rather than the rejection of aggressive violence as the organizing principle of society.

Like I said originally, that’s a perfectly fine position to hold. I actually tend to agree, as I have illustrated previously. Let’s just stop pretending that revolution means something other than killing government agents. On Twitter some folks tried to point to a series of negotiations where one group of political masters arranged for some other group of political masters to take over in order to avoid a revolution.

Then Will did what every cop apologist does. Whenever you point out that there’s no such thing as a good cop, especially if you advocate using force to stop them, someone inevitably feels compelled to dig through thousands of news stories of police harassing, assaulting, kidnapping, raping, and murdering, to find some halfway decent looking act carried out by a police officer. It’s quite the chore, but they do manage to pull it off from time to time.

I just don’t see why they go through all that effort, because it’s completely meaningless.

The fact that these people claim the authority to point guns in our faces on the premise that they “protect and serve” us, and actually take a break from victimization once in awhile to do so, means nothing. The fact that they kidnapped and extorted dozens if not hundreds of people before that incident, and will, unless fired, continue to do so after that incident, renders them irredeemable by a single act of decency that any common citizen could just as easily have conducted.

One decent act, does not a kidnapper redeem. The only way a cop can make right with the world is to leave his position and make restitution to those he victimized.

Grigg also referred to the same fallacy I originally addressed about calling Jerad Miller’s cop killings murder. Just because these officers took a momentary break from the aggressions police commit all day every day, doesn’t mean they ceased to be a threat. Everybody knows they are going to get right back in their cars and do what police do, threaten people with death and imprisonment.

The mere presence of a police officer is a threat of “obey me or die”. If Jerad Miller had lit up a marijuana cigarette in the Cici’s pizza, instead of unloading his weapon on the officer, the officer would have taken him into custody. If Jerad struggled, the officers would have beat him into submission, if he armed himself they would gun him down, if he escaped they would call for more armed thugs to join in the pursuit.

Is Mr. Miller obligated to test this theory before he responds to that threat? No. The officer’s uniform is evidence of this. If he had not repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to do so, he would not have a badge, a gun, a radio, or a partner. He’d be in a different line of work.

At least with the Bloods & Crips you can assume they might be drug dealers, or just put on the colors to get along in the neighborhood. Police don’t have that excuse. Their only purpose is to use violence against people who disobey political masters, and if they didn’t do that, they wouldn’t be police. There’s no two ways about it.

And don’t even get me started on proportionality of force when it comes to police.

There’s plenty of things to criticize Jerad Miller for, but killing cops wasn’t one of them.

If you appreciate the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Follow me on Facebook, and Twitter.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Libertymike

    Permit me to introduce some levity:
    How about a debate between Right and Will Grigg?

  • Roy J Lores

    He can’t no such example exists, the closest thing would be the civil rights movement and it got a whole lot of people killed and whose killers never faced justice to this day. I wish people ike Cantwell ha been there because after all the actof naked aggression including the killing o little girls at a a church those bastards deserved to be shot in the face period.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      One of the problems in that seems to be that “black people” were isolated alone against the State. Divided and conquered.

      Maybe the revolution in thought that has occurred since then is leading to a time when we see past these differences, and truly join together to make the State obsolete at last.

  • Right

    I wish you piece of shit anarchists would quit talking about violent revolution and make with the bloodshed already. The sooner it becomes open season for our cops and military on you anarchist shit bags, the sooner we can remove your genes from the gene pool, the sooner the rest of us can get on with enjoying our lives.

    • state hater

      There are millions of non-anarchist “libertarians” (very many of whom will eventually become anarcho-capitalists) who know enough to realize that shit stains like you are the enemy. Your smug attitude will disappear very quickly when you’re about to be killed for your crimes.

      • Right

        You’re a fucking idiot.

        • state hater

          If you have a problem with us ancaps, then come to PorcFest (google the name if you want to find the location) any time from 22 June to 29 June and tell us, in person, how you want us dead.

          • Right

            It is my understanding that those are mostly pacifist anarchists. Pacifist anarchists are marginalized nitwits of no consequence. They are of no concern to me.

          • Roy J Lores

            More hot gas from the resident pro totalitarian retard.

    • Libertymike

      How about debating Will Grigg?
      Are you up for it?
      Be forewarned: given your gene pool, you should not engage him in sesquipedalian logomachy – that is, if you do not want to be embarrassed.

      • Right

        I don’t know who that is. Is he an anarchist piece of shit? If he’s a pacifist anarchist then he is of no consequence.

        • Roy J Lores

          Yes because he is to be killed by your god the state anyway but you expect him to go like a lamb to the slaughterhouse.

          • Right

            The state typically doesn’t kill you unless you violate society’s rules.

          • Roy J Lores

            You speak of society’s rules and rule of law but believe in neither of them the only thing you believe in is the divine right of your beloved ruling elite to do as they please

          • Right

            There’s no such thing as “the ruling elite”. I do wish you’d provide a list of names of this so called “ruling elite” mental delusion you are having.

          • Roy J Lores

            Tell that to the Rotchilds, to the JP Morgan family and other elitists that control this nation and this planet’s entire economy, they even have their annual Bilderberg meetings in which they decide policy, You are a special kind of stupid if you believe their influence does not exist

          • Right

            So you hate rich people that are actually good at capitalism. What’s new.

          • state hater

            corporatism =/= capitalism, dumbass

          • Roy J Lores

            Capitalism requires competition bonehead, JP Morgan hated it as do all the other elitists. Thanks for admitting that you suck their big fat dicks all the time.

          • Right

            You and your ilk seem to have a tremendously tough time with the textbook definitions of even the simplest words.

          • Roy J Lores

            Coming from the one who constantly ignores all actual facts an definitions and thinks that everything that comes of his rectum is the one and ultimate truth, you are nothing but hot gas.

      • Right

        It looks like he’s a Constitutionalist. I have no beef with libertarians or minarchists. They’re statists just the same. My beef is with anarchists, anarcho-capitalist being the ones I have the least respect for. I even favor anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists over AnCaps. Though, they’re all dimwited morons of the same ilk.

        • Roy J Lores

          From Grigg “No genuine “revolution” can be carried out through aggressive violence, or led by people who mimic the worst behavior of those who act in the name of the ‘murderous fiction called the State’” Nope he does not believe in the state

          • Right

            Then he’s an irrational idiot that probably can’t be reasoned with, and I wouldn’t waste my time trying. Anarchists should be marginalized. Violent anarchists should be exterminated.

          • Roy J Lores

            Marginalization always leads to violence ask what happened in South Africa, so be honest you want everyone who does not blindly worship your god the state and the divine rule of your beloved ruling elite to wiped off the face off the Earth, period

          • state hater

            He knows that the heads of the men whose dicks he sucks will roll soon.

          • Roy J Lores

            Yup…

          • Right

            No, just piece of shit violent anarchists should be wiped off the planet. Only non-violent anarchists should be marginalized. Everyone else is fine.

        • state hater

          You hate ancaps the most because we are the only ones with a consistent liberty message.

          • Right

            Hardly.

          • state hater

            Well, it is awfully telling that you have less of a problem with the the types of anarchists who are utter jokes, whose versions of anarchy simply would not scale to anything beyond 100 people or so, who tend to shower once a month and live in their parents’ basements until they’re 30. You reserve your hatred for the well-educated, intelligent, successful, ideologically consistent, rapidly growing anarchists.

            P,S. This is awfully ironic, as the red anarchists just love to vandalize shit, whereas we ancaps do not. Of course, their petty violence aside, you hate us and not them because we are the real opposition, so I suppose it’s not really that ironic.

          • Right

            LOL! You’re first paragraph describes AnCaps to a tee! Hell, even Cantwell still lives with his mother! AnCaps espouse all of the same logic of a child insisting he’s a helicopter!

    • Kitties nRainbows

      Are you going to be shooting up a shopping mall anytime soon? The way you repeatedly wish for violence and project it on others is very telling.

      Everyone is a piece of shit in your world, the only difference is the flavor. What kind of piece of shit are you, Mr. Right?

    • http://conwaythecontaminationist.blogspot.com/ Conway193

      I am not an anarchist – and you are a fawning pig lover. There are more of us than your military or pigs – when the time comes – you will be mowed down.

      • Right

        What an idiot must be. A statist that doesn’t believe rules ought to be enforced … now I’ve seen every possible form of idiocy.

        • http://conwaythecontaminationist.blogspot.com/ Conway193

          Your words say nothing – you might as well have farted out a response, you jackass.

          • Right

            fuggoff dimwit

          • http://conwaythecontaminationist.blogspot.com/ Conway193

            Puerile jackass.

          • Roy J Lores

            Actually he is a pro Totalitarian piece of shit troll look!

          • http://conwaythecontaminationist.blogspot.com/ Conway193

            Apparently, he or she likes dykes, perhaps due to confused sexuality.

  • Charles

    A revolution isn’t a war. There is nothing revolutionary about war. A revolution is a “turning around” of an idea. The American Revolution wasn’t the war. It was the realization that we don’t need a king.
    We got one anyway in the form of the constitution that allowed the formation of the coercive state.
    The founding fathers, in particular Thomas Paine, had the right idea but failed to build a new social structure that would prevent the state from eventually overtaking what freedom we had.
    Because of a very small state, in less than 200 years we became the most free and prosperous country the world has ever known.
    In a little more than 200 years, the coercive state has grown and is now on the verge of destroying all that we, as a culture, have built. There is a solution to this problem and it isn’t going to war with the state.
    The solution lies in building a truly free society that competes with the state and renders it irrelevant and obsolete.

    • Manley Caughell

      Yes, good luck with that when state actors show up anyway to kill you.
      The only answer is, and ever has been, war. Idiot pacifist.

      • Charles

        I think you should be free to go war with the state if that’s the only solution you can comprehend.
        Probabilities are good they will kill you before you do anything that will harm them.
        I wouldn’t want to be a “pacifist idiot” and try to find an actual solution to the problem.
        But hey, since you know what “the only answer is and ever has been,” …let us know how it works out for you.

  • Al Wolf

    good stuff.

  • John Coleman

    It would only require a small percent of people to use force to resist “law enforcement” to crash the system. It’s unlikely the average cop wants to risk his life for a pension that is increasingly less likely to be paid. But the military would step into such a situation and I don’t think average Joe resister has a hope against them. It would be very bloody.

    A less violent means to make the system unworkable would be jury nullification. If enough jurors followed the non-aggression principle then most of the criminal “laws” would be unenforceable. At the moment I don’t think many people are ready for a just society, that being the case I see no hope for a revolution.

    • Manley Caughell

      Jury nullification as a solution? HAH. Funny. That requires a high enough percent of the populace to be “libertarian” to have a better chance with winning elections. You might get one or two jury nullifications a year, but prosecutors have their job for a damn reason. 99% of shit doesn’t even get to trial. Ever hear of a plea deal?
      You either believe in freedom, and are willing to do something about it and claim your freedom (which can only be asserted by your willingness to defend your life and property by any means) or you don’t and you’re just talking to feel special and part of some “oppressed” group. We all know misery loves company, and that’s most “anarchists” here, just a bunch of miserable people who want to whine and complain about something they’re never going to do anything about.
      Either grow up and nut up, or be like everyone else and be meek and complacent. Sitting around whining in online circle jerks is just fucking pointless.

      • John Coleman

        In my last sentence I said that not many people are ready for a just society, hence jury nullification is not at present useful. If public opinion changes substantially it could be. I think when the rest of the war generation are dead and gone we will see a less sycophantic population.

        To get to the point where jury nullification could become useful people need to learn about and understand freedom at the very least.

        I personally prefer not to get killed or imprisoned fighting for a freedom that at present there is no hope of enjoying. For now sharing ideas and helping more people to step up to the truth plus taking careful actions to limit the state is all that I care to do.

        You are free to not like what others do and think they should do what you want them to do, and I’ll ignore you and do what I choose.

  • TroubleBaby

    “More importantly, if this is Grigg’s definition of aggression, and no “genuine revolution” can be carried out this way.”

    Perhaps, Grigg’s referral to “genuine” is within the scope of the NAP(I understand there’s room for disagreement within the NAP definition/how it’s applied).

    What I mean by this, is perhaps(just a guess), he means in revolution in the sense of revolutionary or “new” in how change comes about.

    I offer this because it would make better sense if read this way.

    Every major revolution up to this point has involved violence, which seems to be self justifying in its use for change…so from that perspective maybe the call is for a revolution without the use of violence(and I’m not saying this would work, but we also don’t have many historical examples of stable, long lasting anarchy in modern history either).

    It’s probably important for Grigg to define whether his use of the word revolution is meant to apply to change itself or the method by which change should occur in his mind.

    Or in other words, is he really pitching a “Revolutionary revolution”?

  • Kitties nRainbows

    The point being that by the time violence comes, it is because the State involved has decided to bring it due to its desperation. The people don’t just go nuts and topple governments, the State overreaches in its death throes and incites violence, hoping to consolidate power.

    It is not as if anyone has a choice in the matter. The choice and decision to inflict violence on the public is part and parcel of what it means to be a “State”. The blame rests on those who own the State apparatus, and violent responses are predictable and inevitable. We have seen this time and again in history.

    Nobody wishes for bloodshed- it comes as a natural result of the anti-social actions of the people who are driven to dominate and control other human beings. Sooner or later, people have enough and there’s nothing anyone can do about it no matter how much propaganda is spewed by the mouth organs of the State.

    The revolution of the mind has by then, hopefully, taken root and the new peaceful system that replaces the old violent system will reflect the increasing goodwill that has been the trend among humans since scarcity has been conquered.

    The age of psychopaths is at an end.

  • http://conwaythecontaminationist.blogspot.com/ Conway193

    Man is a warlike creature, due to competition, a product of evolution. All revolutions are rooted in war – even the one that is coming to the United Stares, which will make the French and Bolshevik revolutions appear tame in comparison.

  • http://www.libertariancomment.com/ Glenn

    The idea that using violence is immoral to throw off tyranny is absurd and fails prima facie as an argument. According to these pacifist pussies, our own revolution against the British was immoral. Such statements are actually immoral. What they actually reveal is cowardice and the pretensions of the people who say such things. You see, they don’t actually believe in their convictions and want to have it both ways.

    You see, if you internalize the actual morality and values of anarchy and NAP (I do not, I consider them ludicrous, Utopian, naive, incomplete, simplistic and ahistorical), you should realize you have the moral right to use violence to overthrow this govt.

    What most of you don’t want to reconcile is that your fundamental ideas are crap. You see Cantwell, who tries to actually take this nonsense seriously and act in concert with anarchic “principles” – and many are horrified, but never deal with the fact that he’s just carrying out what you claim you believe is correct. Either you believe you are justified in overthrowing this immoral state or not. And if you believe you are, then if you are brave, you should. If you claim to believe so but won’t, you are a fraud. You are likely an anarchist due to some anti-social aspect of your personality or due to other pathologies, not out of principle.

    Come on anarchists, have the courage of your convictions and start the fucking revolution already. Or be laughed at – as I laugh at you all.

    • Kitties nRainbows

      There is also the question of timing, and when the State will begin its outright aggression in a way that will be obvious to most of the public. When that happens, all these silly arguments from buttsniffing Statists go right out the window.

      Come on Statists, have the courage of your convictions and do your own dirty work for a change. People who aren’t part of your silly religion are laughing at you.

  • AtlasAikido

    Other two super powers look at sabre rattling mouth pieces as senile old couple. They have refused to get entangled. They have own currencies and energy sources and partnerships…

    There is, still marginal utility preference here to also wait until pay checks dry up for the protection racket. Gary North made the point at lewrockwell.

    Fall of East West Berlin Wall was peaceful. Troops guards laid their weapons down and crossed over.

    Customary laws are keeping the peace here in spite of the state. They will also prevail when the state cannot provide a paycheck.

    I suspect actual peace officers and private security will work for free. I know I will. And I know I will be taken care of on the streets…

    Iceland (Still has no State); 90 million do *not vote* in USA; Sagra Model In Russia (200,000 law enforcers jobs taken off market, crime drops significantly, individuals protect themselves, ward off Drug Lord etc); Wenchou Province Model (Anarchic) spreading around the world etc etc. Bitcoin and so forth…

    People are not stupid. Natural laws will prevail in either case.

  • David

    I somewhat doubt Will Grigg thinks there’s any such thing as a good cop. And if he does believe there is such a thing, he definitely believes that they’re in the minority, rather than in the majority. I’ve never seen Will Grigg write anything about good cops, but I’ve seen a lot of stuff about police abuse and the like.

    Its perfectly possible to think that all cops are bad without thinking that all cops deserve to die. And taking that position doesn’t necessarily mean that we think no cops deserve to die either. The people that murdered Kelly Thomas deserve to die. The pigs who strip searched women in the middle of the streets of Texas deserve to die. The well-meaning cop who has never heard of the NAP and thinks he’s keeping his community safe does not deserve to die, IMO. That doesn’t make him a “good cop.” That dichotomy is like saying that just because you don’t think all who steal deserve death means that some thieves are “good thieves.” This is not the case.

    To reiterate.

    All cops are bad.

    Some cops are worse than others.

    Some bad cops have good intentions.

    Some bad cops limit themselves to the aggression that is required of them by the law.

    Some bad cops go out of their way to act in sociopathic ways and oppress the people they supposedly work for.

    Most cops in the above category deserve to die.

    Cops three categories up are bad but do not deserve to die.

    Not all cops deserve to die.

    Some cops are indeed capital criminals that deserve to die.

    Saying that some cops deserve to die and that others do not does not mean that any cops are good.

    Nobody should join the police force.

    Not everyone who disregards the last column deserves to die.

    Most who disregard two columns up should be called out for the aggression they are agreeing to do.

    Cops who refuse to stop committing aggressive acts after they are pointed out should be shunned.

    If you really want to, shun the people who don’t shun the aggressors. You may be lonely, but I’d respect that.

    Don’t kill someone unless they’ve committed murder or some other serious crime.

    Killing someone for theft may be theoretically justified, but I don’t think its moral.

    Cops who have not been proven to do anything worse than theft do not deserve to die.

    The fact that it is extremely likely that a cop will arrest you for using marijuana doesn’t give you the right to preemptively attack him. However, if he does attack you for using marijuana, you have the right to protect yourself.

    Its possible to wear a cop uniform without being a cop, and while this is a bad idea, it doesn’t deserve the death penalty.

    Its possible to wear a cop uniform and be a cop, yet not deserve the death penalty.

    I could keep going on, but you get the point.

    • AtlasAikido

      Natural law has consequences. It will either be paid by the perpetrator or his victims.

      Regarding good cops, bad cops, victims and those yet to become victims etc as being exempt from natural laws.

      Not so.

      Even if a bad cop personally escaped some of the consequences they were never the less transferred to others. His victims were not necessarily innocent. Bear with me for a moment…

      Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature.

      An animal cannot do anything against his own nature without suffering the consequences which is usually pain or death..

      A man who does something against his nature will suffer consequences. ( a rabid dog can only infect those who he comes into contact with).

      Man being a higher level animal the consequences of what he does may affect other animals. (Man can infect inflict consequences on people who do not even know of his existence.)

      As a rabid dog will effect many victims before his death so it is with an evil human being, effect more than just himself. The person who does not kill a rabid dog allows evil by inaction to multiply.

      Man is capable of more evil than one man can pay the price. The consequences of that evil are inescapable in that they are propagated and spread out to those who sanction victim hood…

      People and so called good cops who allow mad dogs etc to exist become victims themselves of their own refusal to deal with reality in a sensible and rational manner.

      If you allow a bad cop to exist then by natural law you will suffer the consequences of such. Some of us are protecting ourselves as best as we can. See my prior post for context.

    • AtlasAikido

      Natural law has consequences. It will either be paid by the perpetrator or his victims.

      Regarding good cops, bad cops, victims and those yet to become victims etc as being exempt from natural laws.

      Not so.

      Even if a bad cop personally escaped some of the consequences (which is the case due to qualified immunity etc) they were never the less transferred to others. His victims were not necessarily innocent.

      Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature.

      An animal cannot do anything against his own nature without suffering the consequences which is usually pain or death..

      A man who does something against his nature will suffer consequences. ( a rabid dog can only infect those who he comes into contact with).

      Man being a higher level animal the consequences of what he does may affect other animals (such as good cops etc). (Man can infect inflict consequences on people who do not even know of his existence.) there’s other applications but for now this is what I have to offer.

      As a rabid dog will effect many victims before his death so it is with an evil human being, effect more than just himself. The person who does not kill a rabid dog allows evil by inaction to multiply.

      Man is capable of more evil than one man can pay the price. The consequences of that evil are inescapable in that they are propagated and spread out to those who sanction victim hood…

      Illustration of this is. Consequences of of bad cops effect people within their radius who may not know of their existence.

      People AND so called good cops who allow mad dogs etc to exist become victims themselves of their own refusal to deal with reality in a sensible and rational manner.

      If you allow a bad cop to exist then by natural law you will suffer the consequences of such. Some of us are protecting ourselves as best as we can. See my prior two posts for context.

  • Dyspeptic

    “Then Will did what every cop apologist does”

    Insinuating that Will Grigg is a cop apologist is absurd. His blog is devoted to criticizing police brutality and thuggery. There isn’t anyone writing on this subject who does a better job of lambasting police misconduct and thuggery than Mr. Grigg.

    There are legions of real, morally degenerate, demented cop sycophants out there to criticize. Blasting Will Grigg because he is a notch less extreme in his position is foolish and counterproductive.