Empire

[Luciftias]

Hey,
A few days ago I got pulled over for speeding on an empty highway in the middle of the night. My fine was $160 plus I lose three demerit points off my driver's licence. Pissed me off and got me thinking: how dare anyone tell me that I can't operate my own piece of equipment however I want on a stretch of pavement that was built with the money forcably taken from myself and other residents? It's a shakedown, really. Just grabbing money and asserting their power. And who are they anyways? The police are essentially the enforcers for "the government", which is a group of people who have ultimate authority over a certain territory. It's essentially a protection racket. The whole concept of empire is so entrenched, I wonder if there is anything that can be done to combat it. This isn't just about getting a speeding ticket. It's about the ocupation of virtually every tract of land on the planet by subtly totalitarian organizations masquerading as protectors and peacekeepers. I don't want to be a serf. I want to be a free and soverign individual.

Luciftias

[m1thr0s]

I think most us want the same thing Luciftias...how is an altogether different matter...let us know if you happen to sort it out please...

m1thr0s

[Radiant Star]

I was just looking into the idea of getting a blog and I saw that if I, a British person, want a blog with this particular set up, then I have to agree to take it under US Law and I then remembered that there have recently been people deported from Britain to face trial under US Law, even though they are UK citizens.

Free and sovereign? See this: http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/11/british-business-under-american-rules

[Ðanisty]

I think I'm going to have to sit this one out as my husband is in police academy right now and I don't have any problem with the idea of law enforcement at all. You guys all seem like decent people, but there are some nutcases out there and I'd be perfectly happy to have the police handle them. I'm not an anarchist...lol.

[YellowJacket]

The only problem I have with police is that they aren't always educated in the law that they are supposed to be enforcing. I have had to correct officers a few times about specifics of law more than a couple of times, most of the time they willingly admit they don't know what the exact laws are. They can sometimes be a little to willing to follow orders and forget that they are civil servants. But their job rests in the balance, so self interest usually wins over.

[Zaii]

I think I'm going to have to sit this one out as my husband is in police academy right now and I don't have any problem with the idea of law enforcement at all. You guys all seem like decent people, but there are some nutcases out there and I'd be perfectly happy to have the police handle them. I'm not an anarchist...lol.

What I don't agree with about statements like this is the willingness so many people have to put their personal safety and the safety of their families and loved ones in the hands of anyone else.

Besides basically shirking off personal responsibility, this entitles and empowers a group of people to exercise force however and whenever they deem it necessary, whether or not that be just, or appropriate. Because they have badges and uniforms and other facets of a recognized and empowered symbol set, they are given credence. This intangible concept called "law" we as a society abide by is supposed to govern their behavior, when in fact, it really doesn't govern much of anything in this world. Honestly, the law really only exists so far as people have to deal with the consequences of breaking "it", and how often does a just ruling actually come about? It's kind of like a collective delusion, that people choose when and how they participate in it.

Counting on the police to protect you is essentially a concession of power and responsibility, and therefore, to me, seems fundamentally alien to the idea of being an evolved human being, capable of standing on my own two feet and if need be, standing my ground.

Just some thoughts.

[Ðanisty]

I can take responsibility for myself, but not for others. I cannot take responsibility for a rapist's actions or a murderer's actions. Do you think the rapist or murderer is going to take responsibility for themselves? By no means do I put all my trust in the law and assume the government is going to look out for me. However, working against the police isn't going to make everything better. If it weren't for cops and it weren't for laws, then you would have more people out there doing whatever they wanted and hurting others in the process. Just because we have the sense to behave appropriately doesn't mean everyone does.

[Zaii]

However, working against the police isn't going to make everything better. No, certainly not all by itself. I agree.

If it weren't for cops and it weren't for laws, then you would have more people out there doing whatever they wanted and hurting others in the process. Yeah, those people would just cease to be called politicians. *tongue in cheek*

I don't believe in an absence of organization or some form of rules, but I don't think the way society as it exists presently operates is anything resembling fair or just, particularly because those with the power/money or fame to evade the consequences of their deeds can easily do so.

[m1thr0s]

I didn't get the feeling that Luciftias was just talking about the police but a whole system of intrusion into people's personal lives in ways that are not productive...are not really necessary and are not fair on any level at all...just opportunistic and greedy. The example of traffic tickets in the middle of the night on an abandoned road is a pretty good example of this...this is a classical speed-trap scenario. Why would there even need to be a cop there at all? I doubt anybody was out looking for murderers and rapists...Traffic Court is the complete antithesis of US Law as defined everywhere else. In Traffic Court you are presumed guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. The testimony (or written reports) of the cops are sacrosanct for all practical intents and purposes. Unless they themselves make a blatant error in their own reports there is almost nothing you can do to challenge them.

But none of this is the fault of cops themselves. For the mostpart they are just doing a job they were hired to do. There's good cops and bad cops like with everything else save only that a bad cop is bad for everybody, including other cops. But it's pretty amazing that the system doesn't produce more of them than it does because it's nuts the number of weird and conflicting laws they are supposed to be enforcing as well as other factors that don't make much sense either to cops or to anybody else for that matter.

m1thr0s

[Ðanisty]

But none of this is the fault of cops themselves. For the mostpart they are just doing a job they were hired to do. There's good cops and bad cops like with everything else save only that a bad cop is bad for everybody, including other cops. But it's pretty amazing that the system doesn't produce more of them than it does because it's nuts the number of weird and conflicting laws they are supposed to be enforcing as well as other factors that don't make much sense either to cops or to anybody else for that matter.What's amazing is that we have cops at all really. There's been a decline in the number of people (including former military) that are applying for the jobs. An article I read recently cites the top two reasons that people avoid law enforcement are shitty salaries and fear of lawsuits. That says a lot more about society than it does about cops. Cops should not have to fear frivolous lawsuits and ya know what? The departments don't back them up. Cops have to hire their own attorneys just to defend the fact that they're following orders. Fear of getting shot at didn't even rank in the top ten. There are a lot of men and women out there that have the balls to face possible death on the job and they're being discouraged by low salaries and lawsuits.

[m1thr0s]

right...and that's getting a lot closer to the heart of the problem in general I think. On the one hand US citizens are facing an accelerated erosion of their historical rights by the same people who are creating bullshit laws and then turning tail like the cowards they are and divorcing themselves of all responsibility for any kind of backlash in the enforcement of those laws. Our problem lies with the law makers much moreso than the law enforcers. Unfortunately, this kind of crap trickles down in very negative ways. People who feel like they are being betrayed from above and below must have a very difficult time reporting to work at all and some of the ones who do, do so for all the wrong reasons...

m1thr0s

[m1thr0s]

When I was in the OTO (many years ago) it was sort of surprizing to me the number of initiates we got that were into law enforcement. People don't always realize that some people are into law enforcement because they really believe in Law! Not just "the law" but Law itself on a higher sort of level... It's probably people like that that are holding the whole damn thing together to begin with...

m1thr0s

[Zaii]

I don't think it's a case of good cop/bad cop personally. A police officer by definition is an extension of the power of the system he works for, and exists to enforce that power. The fact that a community needs external "law" enforcement at all is a symptom of a damaged community (as most are), and an extension of a rooted problem.

[Ðanisty]

I don't think it's a case of good cop/bad cop personally. A police officer by definition is an extension of the power of the system he works for, and exists to enforce that power. The fact that a community needs external "law" enforcement at all is a symptom of a damaged community (as most are), and an extension of a rooted problem.I think, no offense intended, that this is a pretty naive perspective. If what you say is the case, then all communities from the beginning of time have been damaged. You're always going to have some asshole out there killing, raping, etc. That's just the way it is.

[Luciftias]

m1thr0s is correct in his understanding of my intention. I'm not railing against police specifically. The police are the brute force on the street that enforce the decisions of a group of people called "the government" who have a monopoly on a piece of territory. Often the decisions aren't in the best interest of the residents of that territory but are simply exploitative and coercive.

The speeding ticket was the example I used to start the thread. The highway that I was using was completely empty. Nobody around for miles asside from myself and the police officer. I was going 20 miles/hour faster than the posted speed limit. I have over a decade of driving experience and the weather was fine. I wasn't in any danger of losing control of the vehicle or endangering any other motorist or pedestrian as there weren't any. The government just wanted my $160. In the world of organized crime, this would be called a shakedown. I don't mind say paying a toll to make use of a paved road. It takes money to maintain. I would rather pay a toll when I make use of maintained roads rather than pay for all maintained roads through taxes whether I use them or not. And if I'm reckless and cause damage to another person's health or property, I should be responsible for that, and there are various ways of ensuring that asside from a police force. For the government to have someone driving around randomly diverting people and taking their money (because lets face it, about 90% of people drive faster than the speed limit) seems abusive to me.

The government often acts the exact same way as a criminal protection racket except that they have more resources and aren't called criminal because they're the ones who decide what is considered criminal. Property tax is another example of how the government acts like a protection racket. You never really own your tract of land. The government owns it and you are taxed for using it. If you don't pay, you get locked up in jail. Asside from being segregated from your loved ones, there is a very good chance of being subjected to violence while incarcerated (potentially including repeated rape, infection with terminal disease or even murder), even though your "crime" wasn't violent. Anyone who claims that as justice needs to get their head examined.

Another example is taxation on goods and services. Almost every time money changes hands, the goverment wants a piece of it. Not only that, but if you benefited from the transaction, you have to kick up another chunk of your profit to the governmnet - even up to a third of that profit in some cases. I know the governmet takes about a third of my income. Once again, failure to comply with this with result in being punished with a complete disruption of your life and being faced with a drastically increased chance of being the victim of violence. This is standard practice in crime syndicates. In fact, it's their bread and butter. It's the main source of income for the government as well.

Looked at from another perspective, a crime syndicate is essentially a form of alternative government. If they were powerful enough, they would undoubtedly take over and replace the existing government. The way I see it, the trick would be to decentralize government to the extent that the residents themselves are actively deciding how things should operate in their community and enforcing it themselves. Problem, I think, is that there are too many cowards who will hand over their power in exchange for the promise of insulating themselves from taking decisive action and potentially dangerous situations. That power will accumulate in the hands a a small group of residents who will then invariably abuse that power. Those groups will then form a network of alliances with each other and a hierarchy of groups will form to increase efficiency. That, in a nutshell, is what the Government is. It was actually Benjamin Franklin who said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary saftey, deserve neither liberty nor saftey." That may be true, but the problem is that the government is so powerful that we aren't really given a choice of whether to sell our liberties or not. We're born into bondage.

Luciftias

[m1thr0s]

The fact that a community needs external "law" enforcement at all is a symptom of a damaged community (as most are), and an extension of a rooted problem.I actually think that's true, but I am having a hard time envisioning the alternative. The whole idea of a police force that permeates every level of society is actually fairly new in the whole history of civilization. I'm not sure who came up with the idea...probably the Brits. Under Kings it was still possible to be arrested and jailed for some crime or another but we didn't have cops hiding behind bushes everywhere and there has never been a police force invested with so much power as in the US...with the possible exception of Nazi Germany. Kings would have had their armies and their royal guards and such but still nowhere near as all-pervasive a situation as we have today.

It's hard to imagine how we go from where things are at to the "next step" whatever that would be. People would need to be able to secure their own rights in some way on a 24-7 sort of basis or it wouldn't work. I think that from where we are at we have only one or another utopian projections to consider as possible alternatives and I am having trouble sorting out anything that would really cover all contingencies.

edit: the concept of self-rule is a pretty strong undercurrent theme in magick and occultism generally, but I don't know that anybody has ever been bold enough to tackle it head-on. How is this supposed to happen? The idea of universal law seems to suggest that people might somehow be able to tap into some kind of higher power at some distant point in time to defend themselves through some form of technology not as yet devised. Kind of like Shiva and his "death-glance" I suppose. If even 1 in 10,000 people had this power but nobody knew who did or didn't have it, we'd have a whole new playing field. Sounds like science fiction, but so did airplanes in 1899...by 1904 it was a reality.

Sinking everything into an omnipresent and nearly omnipotent domestic police force hasn't exactly stopped crime or anything and it's not all that clear that it hasn't actually exacerbated it. Not so much because of cops but because that whole way of dealing with social problems tries to solve everything by beating it down with a stick and so what do we see...social programs slashed to the nub, education at an all-time low in funding, the medical profession treated like a political nuisance and also slapped down with the legal profession (most politicians start out as lawyers)... It's symptomatic of a whole approach that hasn't worked and isn't working and never will work for very long. It just can't, but nobody is prepared to admit that politically.

m1thr0s

[Zaii]

I think, no offense intended, that this is a pretty naive perspective. If what you say is the case, then all communities from the beginning of time have been damaged. You're always going to have some asshole out there killing, raping, etc. That's just the way it is.

I'm not referring to an absence of protection altogether, I'm referring to a policing force that is external to the actual community.

The idea that a total stranger (average police officer) can walk into a disturbance, and without knowledge of the people, attitudes, backgrounds, and myriad other factors involved, can somehow observe the situation and settle it with an "objective" set of laws, then if need be deliver the people involved to a trail by "jury of their peers" (My peers wouldn't be waiting to judge and convict me, and I think the same applies for you) is frankly absurd.

This is only futher propagated by the authoritarian dynamics that pervade the vast majority (if not all) of our relationships as human beings, and further by our frequent choice not to face them and look for alternatives.

I think the existence of a policing body has much to do with the existence of authoritarian social relationships and the type of person they create rather than some innate human flaw that need be policed.

As to "some asshole out there killing and raping", I'm under no delusions that people are perfect or will ever be, but I think it's absurd that the people with power make decisions every day that lead to various forms of murder and rape, it's merely that they're done with such normalcy and on such a wide basis that they're practically invisible in plain sight. Whereas when one individual kills or rapes, it's easy to see and condemn. I'm by no means supporting cold blooded murder and certainly not rape, I'm just making a comment on hypocritical actions.

I also think the attitude "that's the way it is" is precisely why things are the way they are, and nothing will ever change if everyone resigns themselves to whatever collective fate has been drawn out for them.

Sinking everything into an omnipresent and nearly omnipotent domestic police force hasn't exactly stopped crime or anything and it's not all that clear that it hasn't actually exacerbated it. Not so much because of cops but because that whole way of dealing with social problems tries to solve everything by beating it down with a stick and so what do we see...social programs slashed to the nub, education at an all-time low in funding, the medical profession treated like a political nuisance and also slapped down with the legal profession (most politicians start out as lawyers)... It's symptomatic of a whole approach that hasn't worked and isn't working and never will work for very long. It just can't, but nobody is prepared to admit that politically.

No one is prepared to admit it politically because it would be to admit that the current systems of power don't actually exist to serve the vast majority of the population, but rather those who hold the offices and the wealthy, powerful few that they cater to.

[Ðanisty]

I'm not referring to an absence of protection altogether, I'm referring to a policing force that is external to the actual community.

The idea that a total stranger (average police officer) can walk into a disturbance, and without knowledge of the people, attitudes, backgrounds, and myriad other factors involved, can somehow observe the situation and settle it with an "objective" set of laws, then if need be deliver the people involved to a trail by "jury of their peers" (My peers wouldn't be waiting to judge and convict me, and I think the same applies for you) is frankly absurd.Well, you're talking about two different things here...in fact, two entirely different branches of the government. You may not like that a police officer (a stranger as you put it, but they are still citizens...members of the community) comes in to handle your dispute, but who else is going to do it? There is often nobody who's willing to get involved because it could be dangerous or because they simply don't care about you. If you were the victim of domestic abuse, I'm pretty sure you'd rather have a police officer come to your house than nobody at all. As far as your peers, no they probably aren't your peers and they probably aren't my peers either. If they were your peers specifically, they'd be biased in your favor. Either way, we can summon everyone in town until we get another occultist on the jury. Hell, in my case, I'd be surprised if they could find 12 people in my county that could be considered my peers. A peer isn't the same thing as a friend though. Peers aren't necessarily going to agree with you at all.

From dictionary.com
peer2 (pîr) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dpeers%26x%3D26%26y%3D14) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif
n.
A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age: children who are easily influenced by their peers.

A nobleman.
A man who holds a peerage by descent or appointment.
Archaic. A companion; a fellow: “To stray away into these forests drear,/Alone, without a peer” (John Keats).
As to "some asshole out there killing and raping", I'm under no delusions that people are perfect or will ever be, but I think it's absurd that the people with power make decisions every day that lead to various forms of murder and rape, it's merely that they're done with such normalcy and on such a wide basis that they're practically invisible in plain sight. Whereas when one individual kills or rapes, it's easy to see and condemn. I'm by no means supporting cold blooded murder and certainly not rape, I'm just making a comment on hypocritical actions.Let me ask you this. How do you plan to stop murderers and rapists without a group of people willing to take the risk of going into dangerous circumstances like that?

I also think the attitude "that's the way it is" is precisely why things are the way they are, and nothing will ever change if everyone resigns themselves to whatever collective fate has been drawn out for them.It's not as if I approve of the government and it's not as if I don't vote to change everything I can. My comment is directed specifically at human nature.

[Zaii]

Well, you're talking about two different things here...in fact, two entirely different branches of the government. You may not like that a police officer (a stranger as you put it, but they are still citizens...members of the community) comes in to handle your dispute, but who else is going to do it?

The people involved in and surrounding the situation. Yes, it requires a fundamental change of attitude from where most people are now, but in the last few years I've been able to handle a number of situations in which the police very well could have been called, and I've come out alright.

If you were the victim of domestic abuse, I'm pretty sure you'd rather have a police officer come to your house than nobody at all. Actually I have been a victim of domestic abuse, and I handled it just fine by myself. It didn't happen again past the first instance.

As far as your peers, no they probably aren't your peers and they probably aren't my peers either. If they were your peers specifically, they'd be biased in your favor. Either way, we can summon everyone in town until we get another occultist on the jury. Hell, in my case, I'd be surprised if they could find 12 people in my county that could be considered my peers. A peer isn't the same thing as a friend though. Peers aren't necessarily going to agree with you at all. The fundamental idea to me is the problem. How can total strangers without knowing the ins and outs of a situation and having lived with/around the people involved be the arbiters of a just resolution?

Let me ask you this. How do you plan to stop murderers and rapists without a group of people willing to take the risk of going into dangerous circumstances like that? It requires a fundamental shift in perspective and attitude, and yes, it's not exactly where most people are now, but if people were invested in their own communities in a fundamental way beyond just shallow economics, people would be more apt to act.

Another issue is that the modern human in a city is basically dull and defenseless. Our food comes in boxes and we wouldn't know how to get it without the giant boxes where its sold (stores). We live in boxes, insulated from the outside world. We travel in boxes, our entertainment comes from boxes, etc etc. Our senses are dull, our intuition is smothered, and most people frankly don't know how to defend themselves.

It's not as if I approve of the government and it's not as if I don't vote to change everything I can. I certainly didn't peg you as the type to "approve of the government", so please don't think I made that assumption. Although voting is another topic of discussion altogether.

My comment is directed specifically at human nature. Human nature (or "the selfish gene") is a myth, and exists as a concept used to excuse any number of mistakes and terrible injustices, or rather, to offer no solution to them, and to simply throw up one's hands in defeat, so to speak.

How is it that a world can be populated by a myriad number of cultures and people, all with different beliefs and ways of life, some radically so, and there be something called "human nature"?

I by no means deny the existence of common, unifying traits among human beings, but I think a person is largely shaped by their circumstances, conditioning, and social surroundings. The vast differences between say a man living a in a major city who has lived there all his life, and a man the same age in an aboriginal tribe demonstrate that people are not inherently geared up to murder and rape each other, and that it's a product of the society you are raised in, and the circumstances of your birth.