Sort:  

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.

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.

That is a short term solution in our current world. It is not a long term solution as the Sheriff is still a human and has the ability to force/enforce their beliefs upon others. A sheriff in many governments does have far more power than people realize if they would exercise it. They are also different from a police department. A Sheriff is elected, a police department is hired. Many people do not know that.

This in the long term does not make the sheriff a good thing and solve anything that @larkenrose wrote about it is still a human given authority that they had no right to have over other humans. Good intentions do not prevent a thing from being evil. In the short term world we live in right now if you want to look at things you CAN do right now, a sheriff is indeed something to consider. Nothing says a sheriff couldn't be an anarchist that is simply fighting the short term goals in reality today in hopes of leading to the future where there is no state.

It really depends on what you are discussing. What you can do RIGHT NOW? Or what you want the future to be like and what is the ultimate goal we are fighting/educating to make happen?

@larkenrose tends to focus on the long term goal from everything I have seen of him. There are people fighting and trying to make things happen right now, and they can't just suddenly ignore the system and hope to accomplish things.

Well stated, and totally complementary to what I noted. Thanks @dwinblood.

Anyone who seeks the power to initiate violence against other people is by definition bad, so there aren't any good sheriffs. There are undoubtedly some who are delusional and actually believe they can use their power to protect rather than violate other people, but they may be even more dangerous because they are incapable of using their own hearts and minds to judge right and wrong. They have already surrendered their humanity to the delusion.

If the Sheriff swore an oath to uphold all laws and many laws are manifestly unjust or evil, the sheriff (all law enforcers) has sworn an oath to uphold evil as long as it is legal. (Slavery for example). So then, show me a 'good' sheriff.....or a good Nazi SS Officer.......or a good burglar .....or good car jacker. If your 'job' is immoral because it fosters or enforces evil laws and you've sworn to do your duty upholding all laws, then 'just don't your job' is participating in evil. Again, show me a 'good' sheriff who ONLY enforces the laws he considers in his own mind to be good and just and ignores enforcing the laws he personally believes are unjust or evil.

Orrrrrr motion to abolish statism and or privatize security, or, "police".