This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

How do you Handle an Insane Armed Thug?

I see this issue debated over and over again in many contexts. A State policeman/thug stops you and demands ID. The policeman doesn't have the legal authority to demand your ID. Do you:

  1. Show ID to avoid the hassle and waste of time.
  2. Refuse to show ID.
I have sympathy to both approaches. The policeman is obviously the aggressor in this scenario.

I'd probably show ID to avoid the hassle and waste of time. I'd comply with the policeman's demand. I'd use the time saved for promoting agorism or other productive activities.

The policemen's salaries are paid via taxation/theft. The policeman can detain you. They get paid the same either way, but your time is wasted. You might say "That's wasting police resources!", but almost everything that monopolistic State police do is a waste!

The policeman would probably conclude "FSK is not dangerous!" solely based on my body language, and not escalate the issue. For example, when I get on the subway carrying a bag, the police are sometimes checking all bags. If I walk up to them and open my bag to show it to them, they don't even bother looking inside. Even if there were no other passengers, the policemen would be more interested in their conversation with each other than carefully checking my bag. If I acted nervous and walked passed them, then I'd certainly be subjected to a full search.

It's amusing to see a policeman with a bomb-sniffing dog. The dog is usually a lot smarter than the policeman! The policeman doesn't notice me. The dog seems to notice "This human is more alert than the others!" The dog doesn't give the "FSK is carrying a bomb!" signal, so the policeman doesn't notice.

If you refuse to show ID, then the policeman will make up an excuse and arrest you. Then, it's your word against the policeman regarding the facts of what happened. Fake crimes like "disorderly conduct", "disobeying the orders of a policemen", and "resisting arrest" allow the policeman broad discretion to do whatever he wants.

There usually are multiple policeman present. They will all say "The guy who refused to show ID was a threat and needed to be arrested!" If it's one non-policemen disagreeing with several policemen, the policemen will almost always be believed in a State court. When testifying, the policemen carefully rehearse and coordinate their stories.

Some people say "If the policeman attempts to arrest/kidnap me, then I'll resist violently!" or "I'd run away!" Such an approach will likely end in your murder. The policeman can always say "But he was reaching for a gun!" and then murder you and get away with it. Even if you could somehow kill all the thugs currently confronting you, you'll be murdered when backup arrives. At some point, the thugs will learn about the death of their comrades, and will come after you with superior resources. If it's one person against the full focused power of the State, then that person is SOL; nothing focuses the attention of the State like the death of a thug/policeman. The death of a policeman is always a #1 priority, because members of a criminal gang protect each other.

A direct violent confrontation with policemen is pointless. You'll just get yourself arrested or tasered or killed.

I'd rather use my time productively promoting agorism, than wasting it in a confrontation with idiots.

Some people say "I'll sue the police for misconduct!" My reaction to that is "Forget it, idiot!" Think about it carefully. Who do the police work for? Who does the judge work for? A judge knows that the only reason he has power and influence is the fact that State thugs obey his orders without questioning them. Therefore, a State judge almost always sides with the police in a dispute.

You sometimes hear cases where an individual has a dispute with a policeman in a State court and wins. Those cases are themselves evil fnords. The fact that sometimes a policeman does something bad and gets caught, doesn't justify all the remaining times where they get away with it. Even when a policeman murders someone, the worst-case outcome usually is that the policeman gets fired. A State judge almost always accepts the policeman's explanation over the non-policeman's explanation.

As I mentioned before, suing the government is pointless. Even if you could sue the State in a State court and win, the damages would merely be paid by everyone else as higher taxes. The State bureaucrats themselves are protected by sovereign immunity. They will suffer no personal liability for their misconduct.

Consider an analogous situation. You see a crazy person on the subway. Do you:
  1. Pick a fight with him.
  2. Ignore him.
How many of you say "When I see a crazy person on the subway, my immediate reaction is to pick a fight with him!"? That's obviously stupid.

A State thug or bureaucrat should be treated like a crazy person on the subway. Once they notice you, your best approach is to escape their attention. With a crazy person on the subway, they'll forget about you. With State bureaucrats, they will dispatch as many armed thugs as needed to ensure your compliance.

A State bureaucrat is much more dangerous than a single crazy person on the subway, because he's a member of a crazy cult with lots of resources. The overall principle is the same.

Suing the State for damages in a State court is like picking a fight with a crazy guy on the subway. It's a waste of time.

The best strategy for ignoring insane State bureaucrats/thugs is agorism.


s_baar said...

That's a good question. Personally, I'll show my ID on principle. I reason that even if I lived in my most ideal, agorist, libertarian world, I would probably agree to show my ID to peace officers whenever they asked.

fritz said...

A society by definition has the right to make law with in its self. I think its high time a proper Agorist society was formed. All the members would conform to the rules with in the society. And it would be totally legal and lawful.

Who wants to join The freemans society of Agorists...??????

Count me in Fritz

George Donnelly said...

"I'd use the time saved for promoting agorism or other productive activities."

That is outrageous. The system runs on your voluntary compliance and consent. You fuel it when you comply, and accelerate your own demise.

CorkyAgain said...

How do you square this with your assertion that paying taxes is immoral?

I say that in both cases you're being coerced and therefore can't be blamed for doing what the thugs demand.

Anonymous said...

I hate to say it, but in the United Kingdom if an armed gang of thugs:

1) Forces their way into your house
2) Ties up your family
3) Threatens to kill your family
4) Hits you violently so many times your wife begs for them to stop
5) Threatens to kill you
6) Makes your family crawl from room to room tied up
7) Your son disappears and you think he may have been killed or kidnapped

and you hit back with a blunt instrument, a court will send you down for 30 - 39 months.

This is what happened to Munir Hussain. Just Google that name for the full story.

In the UK, you are not allowed to defend yourself against armed criminals that threaten you.

The Nu Labour government has wrecked the country.

The State goes out of its way to protect criminals. Witness the fact the State paid for 3 psychiatrists to testify in court that the armed thug that threatened to kill Munir Hussain's family wasn't well enough to plea i.e. could be let off for his criminal actions.

Wow! The same State won't even pay for the health treatment of law abiding citizens, but it can afford 3 psychiatrists to help a thug with 50 previous convictions.

The crooks in office obviously show professional courtesy to the crooks that rob people with violence, because they are essentially in the same business. It is becoming more and more obvious day by day.

FSK said...

Showing ID does not directly give the State resources, like paying taxes does. Paying taxes is immoral, because you're paying the thug's salary. If you show ID, you're making a tactical decision to avoid conflict.

It was George Donnelly's open-carrying story that started me thinking about this point. I didn't specifically mention him, because I didn't want that to be the point of the post. I've heard this story many times in many different contexts, which is "Should I show the State policeman/thug ID, even if he has no legal basis for the demand?" ("legal" according to insane State law, which actually gives the policeman broad discretion to do whatever he wants)

Both approaches seem reasonable. Showing ID to avoid conflict is reasonable, saving your effort for other things. Saying "This is a terrorist and I refuse to comply!" is also reasonable. I'm not sure what is the correct strategy, but I'd show ID and save the effort.

CorkyAgain said...

I don't think paying taxes under duress is paying the government thug's salary any more than handing my wallet over to a mugger is paying him for his "services".

George Donnelly said...

Corky, you're not being coerced until you are actually being physically coerced. My goal is to resist until that happens. So when they have the gun to my head, they can have "my" ID and "my" tax payments, if I have no other reasonable out.

"Showing ID does not directly give the State resources"

Yes, it does. It gives the state your voluntary compliance; it saves the state the effort needed to coerce you into compliance and it beefs up the egos of the enforcers so they'll be even stronger for the next human being they attack.

"It was George Donnelly's open-carrying story that started me thinking about this point"

I resisted and they used coercion to get it themselves. No one got hurt and I did not feed the beast with my voluntary compliance. I don't understand how you get from that to the conclusion that you should voluntarily comply.

Anonymous said...

I can't show something I don't have. And I don't mean "don't have on me".

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at