I'll offer a couple of thoughts in response to this and in light of @caborandy and @joybran's comments.
While it's absolutely true that any LEO who enforces unjust laws is committing aggression against the people s/he's sworn to protect, it's also true that the sheriff is the only LEO who is elected. It's also true that nobody has more authority to protect the citizenry in a given county than the sheriff.
Federal and state LEO have no jurisdiction within a given county without the sheriff's permission. Many sheriff's have made it clear that any federal agent who enters their county to investigate, enforce laws or arrest anyone there without first seeking the sheriff's approval will be locked up. This is clearly not the norm, but it is happening. We've also seen huge swaths of sheriffs state that they will not enforce gun laws, including all but one Utah sheriff sighing a statement to Obama making this point very clear.
I bring this up because the sheriff is there to protect the people, ostensibly. His oath is to the protect their constitutional rights. He is not bound to enforce any unconstitutional laws. His position is supposed to be a true representative and protector of the people, and it comes with all the legal teeth to do so.
Marshall law cannot be declared in a county that has established order. The only time it can be enforced is when the sheriff cannot maintain order.
Unfortunately, most just tow the line and become part of a draconian state bent on extortion and destruction of liberty. But, if you're stuck in the US and you are aware of these things, at least you know that you should be able to approach your local sheriff and discuss these things openly. You might be surprised how many of them agree with you and would be willing to take steps accordingly. Of course, chances are that in any given county you won't be surprised. But it wouldn't hurt to find out.
Interestingly, I come from the country of Sheriff Mack, known for standing against federal tyranny. He's stood on the court steps drinking raw milk and has worked hard to educate sheriffs across the country about their responsibility and opportunity.
It's really in our best interests to find out where the sheriff stands on freedom. If he has a libertarian mindset, then we can get behind his efforts and help possibly make change on a local level. If he's a sellout and will not stand for the freedom of the people he's sworn to protect, then find someone who has some integrity and backbone.
@ricov has a great point. Don't miss it because of hatred for the state. IMO, it's the one possible ray of light in the whole LEO nightmare in the US, as tenuous as it is.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well said, @anotherjoe you clarified my statement eloquently, Thank You.
You and ricov have missed Larken's clearly stated case against political authority (PP). Did you see R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings"? That is fantasy based on human psychology. PP corrupts. The greater the power, the greater the corruption. If you can't conceive of a world without it, because of your fear of social chaos, I submit for your edification (change of mindset) the astounding success of "The Detroit Threat Management Center". It's remarkable because it is a spontaneous, community solution for providing local security, in a humane, moral, non-violent manner. Violence is an option, just not without accountability and as a last resort. If humanity is to have a future, this must be it.
Thanks @onevoluntarist,
Actually, I didn't really miss it at all. You can see from my other comment to this article, and the articles I have written, that I'm in agreement. But @ricov was dismissed without real understanding of his point or any reasonable consideration given to the merit of what he said.
Nobody in the US lives outside of imposed authority, i.e. some form of slavery. Even @larkenrose will have to admit that, as much as we all hate it and see it for the evil that it is.
However much we'd love to live without rulers, and given that we can to some extent marginalize them, their effects on our lives are real. As much as we don't believe in imposed authority, their shackles are real and a cell will hold you no matter how unjust it is. It is more than highly unlikely that you will ever realize a society without statist tyranny. It would be nice, and it's the ideal, but US Inc has over a century of perfecting coercion and manipulation under its belt, backed by almost limitless resources and force.
We can only do what we can do with what we have. And we have choices that include attempting to work with someone locally, attempting to ignore it and go our own way, leaving the country or doing what they did in Detroit. All of these can be pursued with a desire for the elimination of imposed authority.
Of course, what happened in Detroit was great, because it filled the corrupt void left when LEO could not longer continue to extort and otherwise impose upon the locals, with a strong community of organization against real criminal activity. It's an awesome example. On the other hand, the tyranny of imposed authority is still rampant in Detroit. Nobody would call it utopia.
Reading what I said in light of my acknowledgement of the evil nature of the state and desire for a anarchist society should help clarify the intent of my post in the eyes of fellow voluntaryists.
Please see @dwinblood's comment in this thread as well. He "gets" it, even though it clearly is not his ideal either.