I received several emails responding to my article, Some Politically Incorrect Thoughts, mainly on the George Zimmerman case.
Two different emailers commented on my view that George Zimmerman was “stalking” Trayvon Martin and that his stalking provoked Martin. Both emailers brought up Florida law regarding the definition of “stalking.”
Frankly, I couldn’t care less what a state government’s statutes define as “stalking,” because it doesn’t matter what those laws are, because they are not real laws. Those laws are what some legislators say they are. But who the hell are those legislators, and what the hell do they know?
Those laws that these politicians make up are not real laws – they are not natural law, which is basic and consists of the non-aggression principle and common sense, in my opinion.
As far as responsibility and culpability are concerned,, George Zimmerman saw some guy leaving a store, and because the guy wore a “hoodie,” therefore that’s “suspicious.” Martin gave no indication that he was engaged in any kind of criminality (such as if he had just robbed the store he was leaving, of which there was no such indication), or threatening behavior, as far as I can assess, based on all the information I have heard thus far.
Yet Zimmerman chose to pursue by following Martin rather than merely identifying himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer, and asking who Martin was or if he lived in that “gated community.”
So yes, Zimmerman “started it” with his stalking. And I mean stalking in the practical sense, because “legal” definitions mean nothing. “Legal” definitions come from State-employed parasites, many of whom are law school graduates but who know nothing about The Law, and who do not understand aggression vs. non-aggression, and whose loyalties are mainly to the State and not to justice or freedom and peace.
Unfortunately, America is a country with many zombies now, many people wandering along, holding and staring down at their cell phones, constantly having to check for email or texting nonsense to people who couldn’t care less.
And a population of ignoramuses who don’t pay attention to the actual details in the news but unthinkingly believe what their President or congressfelons tell them.
So, because of all this, there may be rioting if George Zimmerman is found “not guilty.” Paul Huebl expresses concern about possible rioting in the streets of the cities, and I am concerned, too. The fact that I am white and live in a city area doesn’t help relieve anxiety.
The police state isn’t helpful either. What we saw in Watertown a few months ago was quite distressing. That was a good example of when the police themselves become the criminals. They criminally and unconstitutionally ordered people from their homes at gunpoint, searched homes without warrants and left doors wide open, terrifying residents and leaving their homes vulnerable. It was a thoroughly criminal operation, and they didn’t even catch the suspect they were looking for – some private citizen found him hiding in a boat.
Alas, most of the sheeple there approved of what was done to them, obediently believing what their armed and badged enforcers and marauders told them, in the name of “keeping them safe.” It was “for their own good,” after all.
Possible Zimmerman-related rioting would likely be mainly by black people committing acts of violence against white people simply for being white. This has been happening a lot in recent years.
Or otherwise minority or city youths feeling angry and desperate because of what the white liberal politicians have done to destroy their opportunities and their futures.
Can you imagine AG Eric Holster being in charge of quelling such rioting?
But why would it be necessary for police to shut off cell phone service in such times of rioting, as Huebl suggests might happen? To make it difficult for the rioters to organize and to relay where police cars might be situated and so on, supposedly.
But what about the other people who want to protect themselves from rioters? Don’t they have a right to organize? Of course they do.
So police shutting off everybody’s cell phone service would be a crime against those who need communications to protect themselves. The police in this instance would be aiding and abetting the violent rioters!
And Huebl mentioned the possibility of shutting off utilities as well. Huh? What the hell is the point of THAT? But then, we are talking about government bureaucrats, after all.
Yet another reason why even utilities services need to be decentralized and privatized.
Well, I have stated before that I’m just as terrified of the out-of-control police now, as much as violent rioters, white or black.
Salon.com recently published an excerpt from Radley Balko’s book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces. But it’s not just the crazed militarizing of the police that is frightening. As Balko mentions, the police are arresting and assaulting and murdering people merely for gambling on football games, and they are violently enforcing licensure laws, and enforcing medical marijuana laws.
In other words, non-crimes. The police are committing actual crimes against innocent civilians to enforce laws against non-crimes! That is what “The Law” means now in Amerika. Another reason why statutes and legislated “laws” are not law, but nothing but a bunch of crap. Just an excuse to give power-hungry neanderthals the power to commit acts of aggression against innocent human beings and get away with it.
I think that Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s work on distinguishing between artificial State law and private law needs to be seriously considered. More in-depth analysis can be found in Hoppe’s book, Democracy, The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.
In my opinion, the natural law against aggression doesn’t take into account what a State-employed politician says, or what some State-employed crony judge says. Natural law against aggression is based on common sense, private property and self-ownership. You own your life, your person, your papers and effects, and you have an absolute right to protect yourself against ANY aggressor.
In fact, Gary North recently wrote about the moral and practical way to deal with aggressors and invaders:
In Houston on Sunday afternoon, three armed men entered a home and demanded payment. They got payment. The owner of the home grabbed his gun, shot two of them dead, and scared off the third, who ran.
This is the kind of welcome that should greet all such intruders in America, every time. It should greet all such intruders, all over the world, every time. If there were more greetings like this, there would be fewer intruders like this.
The case will automatically be referred to the grand jury, but authorities will tell the grand jury that this force was justified. In Houston, the voters believe that armed resistance to armed intruders is the proper response. This opinion has filtered down through the political system. In Houston, people are armed. Intruders may be armed, but they know that they may meet others who are even better armed inside the homes which they invade.
The two dead intruders will not be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail for several years at the public’s expense. They will simply be buried. From a a tax-efficiency standpoint, this is surely the way to handle armed intruders.
In Houston and in Texas generally, this is the prevailing opinion. Intruders in Texas take their lives in their hands. This is where intruders should take their lives. Briefly. Then, the remains of the intruders can be taken to the appropriate resting place.
In some parts of America, this opinion would be regarded as barbaric. Especially among intruders. Illinois, New York State, and Connecticut side with the intruders. The third intruder, assuming he remains in the same line of work, would be wise to move to Illinois, New York State, or Connecticut. He should move out of Houston.
Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a writer and cartoonist,visit his blog .
Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
