"The main political problem is how to prevent
the police power from becoming tyrannical.
This is the meaning of all the struggles for liberty."
by:
Ludwig Von Mises
(1881-1973) Economist and social philosopher
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
I am a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics, and I readily agree with Von Mises in a sort of "yeah, duh" kind of way here. The aim of society is to perpetuate civilization; whereas one man, if left alone, can only accomplish the day-to-day tasks of going out and hunting wild rabbits (as in an original case of the state of human nature), a society of men will learn how to irrigate and cultivate the soil, build homes, improve upon living conditions, find and prepare food, and have time left over to hopefully ponder the perplexities that have now been created between each man and their counterparts. As one man is out hunting for meat, the other is building a house, the other is tilling the soil, etc. (basically doing all foundational jobs wherein society was first built), one man also kept order as each man delegated a duty to this person to enforce the pre-approved codex of regulations wherein each member agreed. They were able to delegate the position to the "policeman", because they already had the inherent human/inalienable right to begin with (from birth), but they saw that it was better in the interests of time to appoint someone in this matter. It is a philosophical debate whether or not the society abdicates their right of self-protection to the appointed delegate, or merely delegates the right of self-protection in large matters that can be directly and immediately dealt with by the officer in order to relieve the pressure of constant self-protection from each member of the newly formed society (the philosophical battle between Rousseau and Locke, for instance). Once you take the scenario back to an original state of the human experience in nature, the philosophical question becomes more obvious. If the purporters of abdication are correct, then the meat hunter has no ability to defend himself against the wild boar or neighboring tribe, nor does the tiller of soil have any ability of protecting himself from poisonous ground serpents, because their ability of protecting themselves has been magically abdicated and endowed upon another human being. If the purporters of delegation are correct, then the meat hunter defends himself against the wild boar and the neighboring tribe individually, while the appointed "policeman" is taking care of the ground serpent situation and can come around to help him out against the warring tribe. The problem is that we tend to overlook the simplicity of delegation of powers once society becomes a large number (which is completely arbitrary, because each generation is epoch-centrist). Can I do a citizen's arrest so that I can take someone into police custody? I should be able to, because that was the beginning of the policeman's duty to do the same (once I delegated the duty). But if the modern day warring tribe is going to come after me, I'm certainly not going to sit around waiting for the policeman to show up before I start defending myself. Should the individuals who have been delegated duties infringe upon my inherent human/inalienable right of protecting myself against instant invasion or danger, such would be usurpation and tyranny.
 -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    Prevention is no problem in Amerika, the Waffler factor majority promote and support the police power becoming tyrannical. Such Amerikan utopia consists of enforcing compelled compliance, license, governmental larceny (fiat money system, theft of the noble laborer's fruits, etc.), victimless crimes, torture for information, etc. by whatever force needed. The American Representative Republic, complete with Constitution, that was a government of laws, exists no more. It has been replaced by the police state that enforces the government of men. There are but few that struggle for freedom.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    The police in this country can stop your car, have a drug sniffing dog find a trace of hemp and arrest you on the spot and confiscate your car. They can take your car and don't even have to charge you with a crime. The same goes for your home if they should find one hemp plant any where on your land, or a part of a hemp plant, one leaf. If this isn't tyranny, it will do till we get some. For good old home grown tyranny, look no further than The War on Drugs and the IRS. (P.S. My drug of choice is caffeine.)
     -- jim k, austin     
  •  
    Self defense is a natural right and no one to my knowledge on this site has abdicated giving it up nor do I know of a single instance in history where it was forbidden. Speaking of history I can not recall this morning at least of an instance of tyrannical police. (The confrontations during civil disobedience in the deep south might qualify except the police were putting tyranny on to supposed "law breakers".) Even the evil (by our standards) and dreaded Gestapo apparently had the support of the people as did the authorities who operated the Spanish Inquistion. By police tyranny I suppose Van Miess means a system where the "police" run things for the benefit of themselves. Not the benefit of the people nor even the benefit of the government, the crown etcetera. If the police are doing the bidding of a tyrannical government it is not truly them that is tyrannical but the government themselves. Now I do know (as do we all) of tyranny imposed by a military force and usually a foreign one outside of the people. That is "the meaning of all struggles for liberty". That local police anywhere and everywhere can act corrupt or tyrannical sometimes I would agree (videoed beatings, prison guard foul ups etc. even tho it can be argued that they were goaded into their actions) and the situations are generally brought to light and corrected but other than that I cannot buy the gentlemans quote. I wish I could give Five Thumbs down. Having police does not abdicate self defense. Some are less capable of self defense than others ie.women and children. Mike you don't know anything about the Waffler majority (may their numbers increase). Self-defense does not include the right to attack or fire upon the police whom you and the people have hired to protect all of us. Such treachery is the lowest form of human behaviour. Maybe that is why the Mikes and the knucle walkers of the world like it so much. Treachery is their name.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    To Waffler, Did you not read my blurb directly above yours? The things that I described go on daily all over this country. As to your insult to women, poor helpless creatures, there are numerous ways that women can and do protect themselves. Some carry that new invention called a pistol and they know how to use it. You know, the thing that the Brady Bunch is trying to outlaw. Wake up and smell the coffee.
     -- Jim K, austin     
  •  
    Jim, quit blaming the police for all of your failures as a human being. Did the police right the laws about hemp, drugs or filing a tax return? Look to thyself and thy neighbors friend, for there is the problem. The problem is not with the police, the DEA or the IRS. Get a mirror little buddy and stare into it until you get the message.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Did anyone else notice the gradual transition of the police from peace officers to law enforcers? Naturally they want to disarm you, they are much safer that way. It would allow them room to move more quickly towards an outright police state.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    The quote is simple and to the point -- excellent. It is not so much the police that pose a danger -- it is the militarization of all the federal agencies -- IRS, FEMA, DEA, FDA, ATF, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and the various private security forces (i.e. mercenaries like Blackwater and others). Explain to me why the FDA needed swat teams to raid a health food store because of selling vitamins and natural herbal supplements? The 'police power' is being extended to all government agencies while the civilian is being disarmed. As Logan explains eloquently above, yes, we may hire security forces because we have the right to use the same force ourselves individually. But when these hired hands use their power to disarm their employers to suit a privileged class (government employees, officers, etc.), and when we shift from defense to enforcement, then the police power has usurped their jurisdiction. Liberty is lost through gradual abuses, setting precedent after precedent until the older generations have passed and the younger ones never know what they lost.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
     -- Pedro Borrero, Yauco, Puerto Rico      
    J Carlton what is the difference between peace and law? Where I come from it is the same thing. Where there is no law there is no peace. We are permitted and encouraged to practice self defense, some police forces I believe may even give courses on it. And we are encouraged to do our own tax returns etcetera. But if you do it wrong, self defense or your tax return, you could be held responsible for things like using deadly force unnecesarily or even murder, and you could be held responsible for tax violations also. You have responsiblities not only to your self but to society (the people) in both self defense and in doing your taxes. Having authority also means being responislbe, Police investigations and IRS investigations may determine if you did it right. Good luck!
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, just a note. In general, you are right about peace and law. Exceptions: Some slaves are at peace but, it is not lawful. The law, especially the enforcement thereof (differentiated from justice) is not always peaceful. Tyrannical police that enforce other than law also disturb peace.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    When the police take your car because of a whiff of pot, that dose not take into account if that was the result of a hitch hiker or of a prior owner, as in a used car, but try to get your lawfully cop/ government stolen car back. Will you tell me that that is trully lawful, and a service to society/ the people? Was anyone really threatened or endangered in this event. If we are trully free, and not just imagine that we are free, shouldent we have the freedom to decide for ourselves as adult, free moral agents, to use coffee, tea, pot, booze, tobacco or what ever as long as we don't endanger anyone else. Ps. how much steriods, pot, coke etc do the cop use. Amn how about the real thugs, ATF, IRS and such.
     -- Ken, milford pa     
  •  
    The cops, ATF, IRS are doing the jobs you/we pay them to do. In fact I have heard it said by an IRS Agent "we love those who screw up their taxes, it gives us something to do and we love those who do it right because they are the ones who pay our salary". It goes for the police as well. The people can put an end to the IRS and the cops as well. All they have to do is to start behaving themselves or change the laws and have a ball or bash in any way they see fit. As long as y'all pass laws these other folks are more than gald to get paid to enforce your will.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Good hype Waffler. Despots are always willing to inflict injustice. That's not my will or constitutionally allowed. Ken, my eldest was pulled over for going 15 mph in a posted 10, My child may have been going 13 but the posted speed is arbitrary, not commenced in the legislature, and not law. The cop confiscated my child's car because my child did not have an SSN. After several attempts in court to get the car back, the judge said he couldn't do anything to help which was and out right bold faced lie. He could have moved on the writ of mandamus and had the car released upon paying the impound. The judge just wanted to make an example of my child and show that people without SSNs would not be tolerated in his court, even though no law had been broken and no legal provision existed that gave the cop authority to have my child's car impounded. There will always be a struggle for liberty when the cops and judges are despotic criminals. Might does not make lawful or right.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Very good, but I would have added "and Government" This subject is very broad and I'm afraid needs more than this blog to debate. I do though appreciate the comments above as they are reflective of how view our police force. Robert Peel who started the London Bobbies was criticized as being good and evil (perhaps evil is to strong a word) - this may be why to this day we have problems. The Mises Institute also reflects many of the Libertarian views expressed on this blog www.mises.org
     -- RobertSRQ     
  •  
    Mike I am so sorry to hear about your experience. I too have a horror story but time will not allow for full disclosure here. However my family was threatened, then held at gun point, and physically abused. The cops refused to press charges against the criminal. I had to file a complaint against the cops, and a Constable. The DA actually tried to weaken the case by refusing to allow the fact that the criminal phoned us first and made the threat that he later carried out. The DA split the charges so that the jury would not know of motive and opportunity. This backfired on them all, as I did not have the DA represent me on the other case. I had my own lawyers and we won hands down. A federal attorney reviewed the case and told us that we had a slam dunk case against the Cops, Constable, DA and the criminals defense attorneys, for judicial misconduct, not to mention the thug himself. My family was not protected or served and I know that there are worse stories then this.
     -- Ken, Milford Pa.     
  •  
    Dilution your case with a bunch of lawyers can be a problem. I went through three divorce attorneys and in the end my wife fired her attorney. At the end my two fired attorneys and her one stood in the court room her and I and my remaining attorney closed the deal. The other three were totally bewildered with a look of "hey what happened". I believe it is all a case of communication and credibility with these guys and the more people involved the worse it gets. Its your case and you have a right to run the show not the lawyers.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2019 Liberty-Tree.ca