Tuesday, June 2, 2009

PtOhLuIgCsE

assuming that all people have the same rights, why is it that all are not condemned for certain rights violations, nor are all praised for criminal acts? for example, it is very common to see some people threatening others on the side of the road, attempting to extort money from them. often, these people are praised for violating the rights of their victims. they are openly regarded as heroes, necessary to the survival of orderly society. you know them as police. yet there are others who do the same thing in alleyways and dark street corners who are condemned for the same acts as criminals destructive to the functioning of an orderly society. what am i missing?

is the violation of the rights of others, the aggression of one against the person and property of another good or bad for a society? is it the act of hurting others or simply the name given to the criminal? if a person kills an innocent person, it's murder. most consider this destructive to a functioning society. but if we simply change the murderer's clothes from street rags to a policeman's costume, suddenly the murder becomes a heroic act, or at worst, merely an unfortunate occurrence. why the difference? what is it about state-employed thieves, murderers and thugs that makes criminal acts good for some, but bad for others?

the fact is that perception doesn't matter. a criminal act, no matter who it is committed by, is destructive to a society. no matter how the perpetrator is dressed, no matter what the myths are surrounding his role, regardless of his own demand that he be worshiped by you, a criminal is a criminal. does this person aggress against the person or property of others, whether or not those people have actually hurt another person? if the answer is yes, then that person is a criminal.

forget the rhetoric and focus on the acts of the people themselves. society not only doesn't need a legally authorized criminal class like government police, it suffers because of them. what's wrong for one is wrong for all. if i can't force someone off the road and threaten them for money without being called a criminal, then neither can a cop.

the sooner we can lift the veil and see the state for what it is - a cancerous growth on society - the sooner we can shed our bonds and live in peace and prosperity as much as is possible for human beings.

is the myth of the state so important to you that you would forgo that?

No comments: