The Police Claim To Be Against Drug Selling, Assault, Kidnapping, and Slavery. The Police Sell Drugs, Assault the Innocent, Kidnap Them, and Sell Them Into Slavery To For-Profit "Prisons" (Slave Pens).

Full Story: http://www.naturalnews.com/2016-12-21-albuquerque-police-department-manufacturing-crack-cocaine-selling-street.html

The Albuquerque police department is actually stealing cocaine from people, and then converting it into crack cocaine themselves(this is, itself, an illegal act as far as even our current illegal and unconstitutional government and laws are concerned, much less the proper "common law" referred to by the U.S. Constitution). Unlike people who actually intend to distribute crack cocaine (a plant-based stimulant that is far safer to use than the legal deliriant alcohol), the police then assault and kidnap 100% of their "entrapped" customers. The prohibitions on entrapment don't matter when the prosecutors realize that their constituency have been successfully indoctrinated by government schools to be servile, obedient, and assume they are legitimate authorities and have good intentions.

Assault and kidnapping ("arrest") by police and prosecutors damages the lives of innocent people far more than recreational drug use does. It also attempts to break their spirit and make them servile to a totalitarian, totally anti-American regime.

Of course, morally, nobody has any right to tell anyone what drugs they may use, what weapons they may own, whether or not they can sell sex, or whether they can provide a gambling venue, or whether or not they can do anything else that is voluntary in nature.

Are "Almost All" Americans Cowards?

There is a school of thought that says that anyone who tolerates injustice is a coward. Yet, very few people speak out against the attacking of innocents labeled as "war on drugs." (Even the label is an absurdity, since the drugs themselves are inanimate objects, and hence are "private property." The label of "drug war" is designed to present a prima-facie illegitimate goal to people who then, if they do not reject that goal, have already indicated that they are not intelligent enough to reject phiosophical and logical corruption. This provides the drug prohibitionists with information about who their most powerful enemies are, without them even exposing themselves argumentationally.)

Most Americans will not even speak out against the many goverment wars on private property, and, in fact, even if they disagree with them, they continue to vote for their advocates (such as Hillary Clinton, or the self-contradictory-on-the-issue Donald Trump). Even if they do speak out against the drug war against the innocent, and all the other wars on the idea of private property, they don't take actions that might realistically abolish the drug war (such as by handing out jury rights pamphlets at courthouses), the way Ed Forchion, Mark Schmidter(served over 104 days in jail), Leslie Thomas-Rieser (deceased), myself, and Keith Wood (now under assault by the unconstitutional Michigan State and U.S. government) have done.

In short, these armed and violent psychopaths are an incredibly good argument for violent revolution. Unfortunately, all Americans are cowards (the ones who are good at fighting and willing to unhesitatingly attack people, sign up with the U.S. military so they can attack and destroy large numbers of brown people, instead of the small numbers of mostly-white sociopaths who have infiltrated and destroyed America via "totalitarian socialism"). If you're an American who is not a coward, be warned: keep this information to yourself! Non-cowards are usually attacked and imprisoned by the existing psychopathic intellectual cowards in the militarized police.

Here are a few examples of minarchist "non-cowards" and the price they paid for their bravery, which was not merely physical bravery, but also intellectual bravery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff - Irwin Schiff stated the truth about the income tax, exposed IRS bullying and coercion, and helped people defend themselves from the arbitrary attacks of the IRS. Sentenced to 13 years in prison (a life-sentence since he was elderly), died in prison.

https://www.google.com/#q=schaeffer+cox Schaeffer Cox created an alternative court system and a second Amendment mutual defense pact system in Alaska. An undercover FBI agent held a knife to his neck and told him to say into a recorder that he favored violent rebellion. Evidence of his innocence was suppressed by a psychopathic judge, and he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He was taken from Alaska (where he earned a living as a guide, hunter, trapper, trader and entrepreneur) to a prison in Marion, Illinois, away from his wife and young children, for whom he was the primary breadwinner. Of all these cases, Schaeffer's is the most horrific in terms of lost potential, since he was so smart, such a great speaker, and brave enough to pursue alternatives to unlawful government that could actually work.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/il/aaron-patterson.html -Aaron Patterson spent 17 years in jail for a crime he did not commit, based on a confession obtained by police torture. When he got out of prison he spoke with me, and asked if the Libertarian Party would offer him ongoing support in his battle against the government. I said they probably would not, but that they were ideologically-aligned with him. He recognized that this was true but decided to organize against the Chicago Democrats on his own, as an independent. The Chicago Police sent an undercover informant to his house, whom he had gone to school with, driving a car full of guns and drugs. Because the two were in the same place, federal mandatory minimum sentencing allowed them to send Patterson back to prison on the informant's corrupted words(a legal "conflict of interest"). He was stripped from his remaining family and friends after being free only a 3 years, and sent out-of-state to a prison in Kentucky where he remains to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge When Randy Weaver refused to act as an undercover informant to help the ATF infiltrate a local white supremacist organization that he did not associate with, the ATF charged him with violating unconstitutional firearm laws claiming a shotgun barrel he had was 1/2 inch too short (after they illegally confiscated said shotgun --perhaps even shortening it themselves, since nobody's watching those watchers and they're totally unaccountable to any legitimate law of any kind). Result? The ATF and FBI first shot his son in the middle of the night in an unprovoked "raid." Then, they called in FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi during the following "standoff" who shot his nursing wife in the neck, killing her, too. A simple case of the Federal government murdering the innocent families of innocent people who don't cooperate with its totalitarian thugs.

Who Are The Anarchists? Who is Un-American and Un-Patriotic?

Interestingly, I think that the case could be made that the existing government are lawless anarchists, and that the people who now call themselves anarchists are very strategically wrong to do so. After all, if anyone is lawless, it is the sociopaths who violate the criminal common law. Historically, lawless and arbitrary highway robbers and lawless and arbitrary totalitarian regimes were the ones who violates the common law, and legitimate governments attacked, killed, and imprisoned those lawless highway robbers. Now, in the USA, the ones who behave in an arbitrary manner are the alphabet-soup agencies, (not authorized by the Constitution), and the local police (also not authorized by the Constitution).

Anarchists like Larken Rose aren't morally wrong to argue for anarchy, after all, they simply have a difference of opinion with my theory --even racists have a moral right to disagree based on what their stupid brains interpret to be true reality. But I think the case can be empirically made that the term anarchy is unattractive means of referring to the pattern of "optimal voluntary interaction" that is a possible pattern or "condition" found in reality. Everyone is always right to advance the ideas they believe to be moral, but everyone is not always right about what leads to good outcomes in material reality.

Summed up more succinctly:

1. The state is not afraid of arguments in favor of anarchy, because those arguments are unattractive to a majority of human minds. (This might not be true in Estonia and the City of Irkutsk in Siberia, due to the Historical popularity of Kropotkin and Bachunin in those places, popularized by such bands as Vennaskond, or by the anti-government red-shirt capitalists in Thailand.)

2. The State is not afraid of any peaceful arguments that claim the label of anarchy, because they only concern themselves with preventing free access to ballots, and other means of preventing free elections that might elect any kind of capitalist (from the state's perspective, anyone who is suitably libertarian is a threat, which is why they work so hard to make sure libertarians don't run for winnable offices that have the power to shape policy ---sheriff and state legislator, to be precise).

3. The state has the ability to project coercive power now. The state regularly attacks peaceful freedom fighters who are implementing real plans to interfere with the IRS or court-sanctioned injustices, but they don't tend to attack anarchists.

4. Anarchists lack the ability to project coercive power now. (If they had it, then why are the most tyrannical parts of the state still standing?)

5. Advocating anarchy is not a plan, because it doesn't measurably move toward liberty, or result in any incremental, measurable step in the reduction of state power. The numbers of anarchists that have been recruited towards a goal have rarely resulted in a "revealed preference" change being expressed in an election, even one in which a pro-freedom initiative would have prevented innocent people from going to prison. Minarchist arguments result in people avoiding prison on a regular basis, such as the examples of drug laws becoming unenforceable in D.C. in Paul Butler's book "Let's Get Free."

6. The State often expends resources attacking minarchists (it attacks both their arguments and plans).

7. Either minarchy or anarchy must be successful at accessing now-existing minds that form networks that act on political territory.

8. Those minds lack a framework for moving closer to anarchy via anarchy, but they are willing to expand the anarchic vector via minarchy. On a continuum, minarchy appears to be "less extreme" than "anarchy" in its destination, but it also outlaws the worst of things that the anarchists and minarchists both wish to be rid of: (Under a proper anarchy or a proper minarchy, the IRS, DEA, ATF, FDA, EPA, and other totalitarian government agencies are all illegal, and all unconstitutional laws are unenforceable).

9. All legitimate anarchists believe that all laws that violate individual rights should be made unenforceable. All legitimate minarchists believe that all laws that violate individual rights should be made unenforceable. However, the vast majority of people are willing to call themselves minarchists, but not willing to consider themselves anarchists. Moreover, minarchists have an existing means to render those laws unenforceable that is minarchist, and was established by minarchists: jury nullification of law. Jury nullification of law is also supported by anarchists, but it is not clear how it would exist if the anarchists got everything they wished (would elections be held to ensure the randomness of the jury? Would those elections be voluntarily financed but also vote-controlled by people who had not paid into their financing? ...If so, that's a democratic, voluntaryist minarchist government. It's not an anarchist government, because it retains democratic decision-making.)

10. But let's say you're an "anarchist proponent of jury rights activism" ...wouldn't that be just as effective as being a "minarchist jury rights activist"? (Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing, and I don't want to discourage it.) The answer is "no" for several reasons:

10-a) in the few cases where minarchists were elected to office, they further reduced the government beyond what they could have done out of office (1978-1982, Dick Randolph, Andre Marrou, Ken Fanning, and John Coghill all made an AK income tax illegal, saving Alaskans millions of dollars that would have been used for violence and destruction in Alaska, and stood in the way of legalizing marijuana by employing larger numbers of prohibitionist police. Lysander Spooner's bosses, Charles Allen, and ) One interaction with one voter has a significant cost to it, but several messages can be communicated in that meeting, so it costs essentially the same to promote a liberty candidate who, if elected, will champion the cause of jury nullification of law far more effectively. (In short: You can get more bang for your buck by encouraging multiple actions when you talk with one person than by encouraging only one action when you interact with them.)

10-b) Claiming to be anarchist is most likely to get the person to mistakenly believe that your message only applies to them if they are an anarchist (confusing identity as a necessary component for implementation of a plan --much like a person incorrectly but commonly assumes he cannot work on his own plumbing unless he's a plumber), which most people are not, and will not be without at least 1 hour of "gentle and effective" persuasion. This amount of persuasion is cost-prohibitive.