1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8488/officer-kanapsky-is-it/

Officer Kanapsky, is it?

September 9, 2008 by

We need to realize that the police are like all other government employees: self-interested, living off tax dollars, parasitical on our liberties. The case of Officer Kanapsky shows precisely how and why. The policeman, standing around in a courtroom to testify against our claims, is being paid time and half to waste our time and cause our insurance rates to rise. This overtime permission results in a scam that causes them to engage in low-risk, high-revenue earning activities that exploit the population. FULL ARTICLE


darjen September 9, 2008 at 8:48 am

I just wrote about this very thing on my blog. There are three stop signs on the street I take to get to the highway. One of them is a three-way just like you describe. The other is there because of a sharp curve in the road. The third is a four-way that could easily be a two way on the side street.

I got a couple tickets for running stop signs last year. I did absolutely nothing wrong, yet had to end up paying the city a couple hundred dollars and higher insurance premiums. Cleveland also has plenty of pointless traffic lights on little traveled side streets. You damn well better not go if there’s no other traffic though.

Police are the real criminals here.

J D September 9, 2008 at 9:04 am

Policemen should patrol on foot.

Steve Richardson (Adamantane) September 9, 2008 at 9:15 am

I passed along this resonant article to a number of friends with the following prefatory comment:

This answers one of those many life mysteries of the kind to which we might like to seek answers from St. Peter before we are directed to door number One, Two or Three. Once again, the answer proves to be ‘follow the money.’

The real trick is that we don’t always know where it can be found.

(Is there anything, with the possible exception of matters of passion or childhood wonder, for which this is NOT the answer? Maybe “42″ actually is the number of a secret account in Zuerich owned by gnomes.)<<

Fernando Chiocca September 9, 2008 at 10:21 am

One of the things that impress me most when I was living in US during 3 months was how the Americans seemed lobotomized because they used to stop completely in all STOP signs, even in those desert places ad in those which it was 100 % clear that no other car would cross at the same time. It surprised me because in my country nobody stops completely in such signs.
Later on I noticed that they act like this for fear of receiving a ticket from a hidden useless cop.
Today is common for a pacific and not criminal person fear the cops, mainly in the roads and highways.

Matthew September 9, 2008 at 10:52 am

In the state of California, you can go through the exact same scenario as Jeffrey described in the courtroom. Alternatively, you can contest the ticket via mail. According to things I’ve read at ticketassassin.com, police officers are not compensated for responding to written contestations. Perhaps Alabama and other states’ laws are similar?

bill wald September 9, 2008 at 10:54 am

Libertarians are extra slow learners? Some sort of royalty who think the traffic code is for the trailer trash? Woe to you two-faced breakers of the law.

Jason September 9, 2008 at 11:04 am

I hate police. My wife and girls know this too. Every time my 4 or 5 year old notices a policeman they ask me if someone is in trouble. I tell them no, that the police are always watching even if someone has done nothing wrong. My girls say that is not nice. :)

Thomas September 9, 2008 at 11:26 am

I am wondering if it is still worth fighting these tickets. If everyone insisted on trials instead of plea bargaining, we tie up the courts and whatever money they make from the tickets is spent on paying the overtime, not least they can’t use the proceeds for even more nefarious activities.

Lo September 9, 2008 at 11:51 am

If everyone insisted on trials instead of plea bargaining, we tie up the courts and whatever money they make from the tickets is spent on paying the overtime

Actually increasing costs simply gives the courts an excuse to demand an increase in the budget. Increased spending on police and “criminal justice” is interpreted as increased safety and security. Notice how virtually all politicians are in favor of increased spending on police. We really need people to argue that decreased police spending actually improves our freedom and security.

We also need people to publicly argue for decreased spending for public education. That’s a totally different topic. The point is, anyone advocating decreased government spending for virtually anything is looked upon as being evil. That mindset has to be changed before it will be possible to reverse our long slow decline into democratic serfdom.

Ron September 9, 2008 at 11:58 am

Yes, Bill. We believe that traffic laws apply to everyone but us. That’s the cornerstone of our philosophy, donchaknow…that we’re above the law.


Read some of the material on this site before you post such nonsense. Learn something about the principles of non-aggression before you accept the traffic code as moral or in any way legitimate.

Running a stop sign produces no victims. In itself, it harms no one. Obviously, pulling out in front of another car traveling at 50 mph would certainly produce one or more victims, but rolling through a stop sign when there’s no other traffic to be seen in no way constitutes an act of aggression. Accepting the traffic code as necessary and legitimate is one of the reasons people drive the way they do. Rather than thinking for oneself, choosing the best course of action, and acting thereupon, responsible behavior is replaced with “follow these rules because we say so…it’s for your own good.”

Brad September 9, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Ron hits the nail.

The first shot over the bow is the signs placed there in the first place. Areas that never had stop signs before now do. But people used to drive by paying attention and stop signs at every intersection wasn’t necessary. Now people are conditioned to keep going without paying attention until one of the signs or lights tells them what to do. It CAUSES more harm than good. And as people drive with their heads up their behinds, accidents rise (or at least the severity of the perhaps lesser overall incidents) giving more and more reason to turn every intersection into a stop – yields aren’t even bothered with anymore. So this is what we get with the endless invasion of government into our lives – let them do all the thinking and we’ll just go around the maze, and if we ever happen to stumble on some cheese, they’ll find a way to take it from us.

David Bratton September 9, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Here in Houston the cops don’t write many tickets when there is a Democrat in the Mayor’s office. When a Republican gets elected they sometimes have to hire temporary judges to handle all the cases and the city is usually swimming in cash.

Ron September 9, 2008 at 1:10 pm

The most ridiculous signs I’ve seen so far are the “Mandatory Headlight Area” signs on some two-lane roads here in Maryland. They’re not dark tunnels, there are no blind corners, it’s mostly straight, slightly rolling roadway…in short, it’s just like any other two-lane road on the planet.

So why the mandatory headlight use? Some legislator somewhere thought drivers might forget that there are cars traveling the opposite direction in the other lane unless they have their headlights on? They might just drive across the double yellow line for no good reason? I don’t get it. It’s ludicrous, and I refuse to do it.

JP September 9, 2008 at 1:39 pm

There’s another reason: When you got to court, and they’ve written you for say $75 and 4 pts, they will frequently offer you the alternative of $150 and 2 points for example. Since most people realize it costs them more in the long run in insurance costs, many will take the option. This puts more money in the municipal coffers (which they’d rather), rather than money in the hands of the insurance company (who they could care less about).

Mike September 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm

You can’t use up the courts money by fighting the ticket in Texas.
Here’s how it works…and this is from experience:
you fight the ticket. the judge stacks things against you. he rigs the jury if you chose trial by jury. you lose the trial. especially if you chose trial by judge.
you then have to pay all the court costs including the punk cop’s overtime along with your ticket. those costs are only eaten by the city if you win. it is in the court’s interest that you lose.

you will lose because the judge will ALWAYS believe the cop…they work together. who do you think protectst the judge if someone goes nuts? they say the cop is an objective witness. Objective my foot.

my son got a ticket for failing to use a turn signal. the court won’t even set a date for him to fight the ticket and they won’t dismiss it. that’s been 6 months ago. so much for a speedy trial, too.

It’s all about generating revenue. plain and simple.

Eric September 9, 2008 at 2:01 pm

This is why the cops love the drug laws. More fish in a barrel.

Mike D. September 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm

It also provides a perverse incentive. Take the Oakland BART station. Park you car in the wrong place or the wrong time you will get a ticket. Yet there is broken glass all over the lot from people breaking into cars. My solution – voters should set a limit for the maximum number of crimes in the city. If this number is exceeded, all revenue from parking tickets would have to be returned.

Mike D. September 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Perhaps you need the “Cool-Hand Luke” approach. Demand a jury trial. Act as your own counsel (you’ll have a fool for a client, as the saying goes) and then present your case to the jury. You can even suggest jury nullification!
You’re lucky – in California three moving (in your case hardly moving) violations will result in the DMV pulling your license.

Zinzindor September 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Under a more just and fair property rights regime, the road would be privately owned … and the transportation company owner would still have stop signs there.

If you violated their stop sign, though, you wouldn’t just get a “ticket”. They wouldn’t want you risking the safety of their other customers, nor would they want their insurance premiums boosted for allowing unsafe driving. You’d be booted off the road, and lose the privilege of driving on it.

Then what would you have left to whine about?

Som September 9, 2008 at 5:10 pm

I think this mass subservience to the growing police state is rooted in a deeper belief. That is, that people are too dangerous and stupid to manage risks on their own, and everything must be done to stop them.

I say this because the stop sign ordeal is a problem on my street as well. Luckily I live in a gated community where the police do not come to give tickets (hooray for private roads). However, the way the association arranged the stop signs in my community is extremely dangerous. One of the stop signs is on the main road with a speed bump on its side (!?). Most people on my street do not stop for this stop sign, because they know its not necessary since they can clearly see that no one is coming from the crossing street (coming from only one way, like a fork in the road almost, but perpendicular) which is normally fine. However, to avoid the small speed bump on their side they come in the opposite lane, so if someone was coming at them from the opposite way (which has no stop sign) it could be a head on collision! This is much more dangerous than anything else on that road (barely any car can go over 35 mph on that thin curved road either way)

I took this case to the association to have that one stop sign and speed bump removed, but it fell on deaf ears. They were shocked that i could think of such of thing like remove that stop sign, giving me the usual excuses (children could be hit by drivers who don’t stop, too many fast cars, etc), hardly addressing the concerns I brought up and even ignoring the literature I bought on the subject.

What I did sense was the unanimous fear of other people in their eyes, their “don’t question this, you don’t stand a chance” demeanor. In other words, they looked at me like a common criminal (because I apparently was one of the community members who drives too fast for them i.e. the posted 20 mph speed limit) and i was pretty much laughed out of there.

My point is that this attitude is similar to the police and courts and is not confined to state institutions alone. I know first hand that there is a widespread deeply ingrained belief that risk is unacceptable because “what if something bad happens” and people are too stupid and dangerous to be left to manage themselves (esp on the road) so human nature must conform to institutions rather than the reverse, rationality and common sense be damned!

The way to start reforming these crooked police and court systems is to change this common belief first, otherwise another similar system will take its place in no time (even in a private community).

brentcu September 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I always ask myself the same question: “So what am I going to do about it?”

In this case nothing, since I’m lucky enough to live where nobody seems to get ticketed (‘nice’ neighbourhood in urban Seattle).

But if I had feelings as strong as those I have read in the comments then I’d push for changing stop sign laws to be ‘reasonable’.

Reasonableness is a test that is used in law for all sorts of actions and could apply well to stop signs. It is reasonable to roll through stop signs when there is no other traffic near. It is not when traffic is lined up from other directions.

But this may end up with a whole lot of cases in court arguing over what is reasonable. The intelligence that read mises.org should be able to come up with something better.

Inquisitor September 9, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Bill wald, do you enjoy being a slave to the state? Would you like some shackles?

Maximus Minimus September 9, 2008 at 5:34 pm

I have been railing against police power for months on an off topic section of a sports forum. Why a sports forum? It’s the only place I’ve found that I can have civil discourse with folks.

Many of them now realize that police power is getting out of hand. I can’t help but wonder how out of hand it will have to get before people say ENOUGH!

It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Mike D. September 9, 2008 at 6:28 pm

I think that this is just “If you want to understand how people behave, look at the behavior that is rewarded.”
The officer shows up in court because it nets him $21,000 in overtime.
In California, traffic fines were tripled – Jeff’s infractions would cost a minimum of $271 (each).
What is even more odious is cameras at intersections where the lights have been timed to maximize revenue, at the expense of promoting safety.

James September 9, 2008 at 7:11 pm


Whatever political philosophy you hold seems to leave you in a position where your best response to alternative views is flippant speculation (You don’t really pretend to know how I’d manage the road I’d own, do you?) and the use of pejoratives (You do know the distinction between criticism and whining, right?).

I know that if any of my beliefs left me in such an embarassing position as you seem to find yourself in, I’d be looking for a good alternative. If you wish to get out of this rut, try libertarianism.

Hint: The fact that you don’t feel embarassed is neither here nor there.

Bogomips September 9, 2008 at 7:36 pm


I think I see what you mean. I myself have come to a similar conclusion. Mind you there’s no possible way either of us could prove it, but there does seem to be a deep and growing fear in people of other people. I’ve tried to explain to friends that most people seem to think that the average person is evil, and therefore in need of regimentation. Now I don’t think its conscious in most cases, but to me it seems that most people act as if others cant be trusted, even if they’ve never explicity contemplated it. I feel vindicated by the look of horror on the casual acquaintance’s face when I mention letting society “work it out” without the state getting involved in whatever we’re talking about. To me, the overall lack of confidence in individuals being able to work things out between themselves without coercion suggests an overall pessimism about people: they’re always out to get ya!

And as far as regimentation goes, I remember a professor of history quoting St. Augustine (I think). Something about strong government being necessary to check the people’s iniquity. He looked pensive when I asked him what the point of ruling evil people was if you could only appoint other evil people to the positions of ruler. He hadn’t thought about it, and most people don’t. So although I would say that most people think their fellow man is a cheat-in-wait, he thinks that electing other cheats to political office can somehow redeem society. And most don’t seem to see anything irrational in this.

Anyway, if that belief is prevalent, no amount of small-government and non-coercion talk is going to affect anyone. Their paranoia will prevent any rational ideas from sinking in. Replace their irrational fear and we might have a chance, though.

Bartleby September 9, 2008 at 7:59 pm

I think more and more people are starting to realize the loss of liberty that is taking place, but it will take time before the masses get feed up (I think most people generally think that they are immune from the abuse). I see so many people say, don’t break the law and you won’t get stopped, harrassed or arrested by the cops. But this is a farce and until it happens to you (and more than likely it will), most people will just be too busy to care.

My father was a cop for 20 years and I always thought highly of the police until I had an epiphany about 6 years ago and I woke up to the abuse of the police and now I can’t stand cops. There are no such things as good cops or bad cops, they are all the same (To harrass and arrest and take your money). To Protect and Serve, how I long for those days.

Alan September 9, 2008 at 8:16 pm

If you think that the police work for you ask any person being threatened who requests protection. In a case in, I believe New York, a woman called 911 and said someone was breaking in. A few minutes later she called again and said he was in the house. A third call was made stating that he had killed one person. A day and a half later a concerned parent made the discovery of the dead people in the house. It was ruled that the police had no responsibility to protect any particular person or persons. Whoops, we missed this one. so to speak. They work for the “state” not the people.

hz September 9, 2008 at 10:50 pm

____ tha police, coming straight from the Grove Hill underground.

seriously Jeff, I don’t disagree on any particular point. You might think of hitting up the HOA for a camera to record the goings-on at the relevant intersection. This is not an expensive endeavor nowadays, esp. since you have power on -hand. That way you have some backup in court, the residents i’m sure will be grateful.

kalmia September 10, 2008 at 12:55 am

We have to start standing up to the state if any of this is going to change. Tie up their courts as much as possible. Make it cost more to collect the extortion money than what they get.

Check out Marc Stevens. He has info on fighting them in court. It involves challenging the legitimacy of their courts.

Jeffrey, I would suggest heading down to that sign one night with a paint roller soaked in paint. Coat that sign real good. It will put their revenue collection scam out of service for a little while.

Look up that cops personal details and follow him with a video camera sometime. Record all the infractions he makes. It’s even better if you can do it when he is in his personal vehicle. It will be harder to pull out the old lie that he was on an emergency call.

It wasn’t Kanapsky with you, Jeffrey. So what is his name, if you happen to know.

Michael A. Clem September 10, 2008 at 9:28 am

Under a more just and fair property rights regime, the road would be privately owned … and the transportation company owner would still have stop signs there.
Are you a road transportation expert? Maybe they would still have a stop sign at that particular point, or maybe their experts would tell them it’s safe to not have one there. Even if they did have a stop sign there, maybe they’d be smart enough to recognize that not coming to a full stop when there’s no other traffic isn’t all that hazardous and do nothing about it.
A free market in roads would do the same thing any free market would do. It would provide the incentives to find the best ways to do things, and wouldn’t be locked into doing things according to a rigid set of laws.
Some of the findings by road experts are surprisingly counter-intuitive, yet few municipalities have implemented them on their roads.

Andrew Thorne September 10, 2008 at 10:05 am

I don’t know where you people live, but in my 16 years of law enforcement experience I have NEVER gone to court for a simple speeding ticket. Are you kidding me? Due to the amount of plea bargains going on, I’ve only been to court for a handful of DUI’s in the last 10 years. For that matter, my two years spent in the Crimes Against Children Unit as a detective only netted me about three court appearences. (Please exuse my spelling. It has been a long and emotional week as you will find out in the last paragraph)

Do you have a problem with getting tickets for running stop signs? The solution is simple. Don’t blame the police. Blame yourself for not following very basic rules of the road. Just stop at the damn sign!

Do you want us to concentrate more on more serious crimes? Great. Then stop calling us to quell your 15 year old daughter when she is calling you every four letter word in the book! Be your own parent to your own children and quit expecting law enforcement to be a parent for you! Stop calling 911 when you lock your keys in your car and are too much of a cheap ass to pay a lock smith! Stop calling 911 when traffic is speeding down your street and then call back when you are the one who gets the ticket for speeding! Don’t call us and expect us to fix in a few minutes what your actions in the last 15 years have caused! And last but not all…don’t ever call 911 after you have gotten to work and remembered you left your eggs on the burner and you want us to go to your house to make sure it is alright! Are you kidding me? That was a joke right? NO! Pathetically truthfully speaking it was not. She even gave directions to where she hid the house key!

You want us to spend less time in court, making millions of dollars of course, then stop at the sign when you are supposed to, and, when you don’t, and you get caught, or, when the speed limit does not apply to you, and you get caught, take it like an American man or woman, admit your mistake, pay YOUR dues, and learn from it. Obey the laws. They are there to protect all of us.

Now, you really want something to bitch about? Why don’t you start pointing your fingers at such agencies as FEMA and DEM. For crying out loud! Talk about taking local control away from law enforcment. Haven’t you noticed these last few years everytime some “emergency” is about to befall you, the national guard under the direction of some FEDERAL agency is brought it to “Supervise” evacuations and take control of entire cities? Have you noticed the increase in these kinds of news reports or, are you too busy picking on your local police who are just trying to hold the line between keeping order and allowing people to live as their constitution guarantees. Ever and more increasingly WE in local law enforcement find ourselves pushed out of the picture when FEMA or DEM “takes over” a situation and the way the news reports it, people have begun to expect national guard troops in their cities to protect them from some disaster or that hurricane that hasn’t even hit land yet.

Wake you and shame on you, you whiners. If you do not fight for LOCAL law enforcment, the day will come when you are going to have FEDERAL agencies patrolling your neighborhoods and, if WE Americans do not band together and take care of this, you won’t be getting pulled over for running some stop sign, you are going to be arrested for violating some U.N. charter. Then…then you will wish for the good old days when the cop behind you is that same man or woman who lives in your neighborhood and knows your area, customs, ways of life, and respects them because they are a part of them.

WE in law enforcement are certainly not blind to the fascist state that this country is rapidly entering into. My concern, and it is not a matter of “if” but “when” the American citizen has had enough, and civil disobedience becomes the color of the day, is there going to be enough good and LOCAL officers and deputies left to help stem the tide of a complete and total police state?

Do you really think every officer or deputy out there likes what is going on with all these traffic cameras that are supposed to be there for our “safety”? I for one am also sick and tired of this trend, this ever watchful eye prying into my personal life and the personal lives of our citizens while private corporations like for instance, the Federal Reserve, gets away with doing more to knock down your constitutional liberties as an American than I ever could by writing you a ticket for running a stop sign.

Good cop bad cop? I’m sure there are! Good citizen bad citizen? You bet! Ask yourself, at the end of the day would you rather get a ticket from a cop who lives in your neighborhood, or, would you rather try to live freely knowing the Federal Police Agency just shipped a thousand troops into your neighborhood to “keep it safe and secure”?

While you are asking, know that my partner, a local female deputy, who had a heart of gold and not a fascist bone in her body, was shot and killed last week while trying to help a family in need. She was one of 6 people killed by the same person who was then smart enough to turn himself in, right in the parking lot of the LOCAL Sheriff’s office where we all work.

I bet she would love to get a ticket for running a stop sign right now.

God bless you and God bless this beautiful Republic we call America!

Deputy Name Withheld

Paul Aubert September 10, 2008 at 10:46 am

I find myself thinking these things every day as I drive to and from work and see the police car positioned in the same spot catching all of the same people who invariably exceed the ridiculous 35 mph limit. They position themselves in a place where people feel safe exceeding their set limit (where there are less pedestrians and cross streets) precisely because they know it is completely safe to exceed 35. It has nothing at all to do with safety and everything to do with making money. In the areas where it might actually make things safer to patrol for violators, I never see the police. Perhaps they might have to work a bit too hard for their money there.

Also, let’s not forget the power over the people that government actors exert during times of crises. Last week, during the ridiculous enforced evacuations in my childhood home of southeast Louisiana, the Jefferson Parish President told residents that he works for and was elected by that they’d better not drive around “his” parish because it would not be “Andy Griffith’s Mayberry.” Oh, would that it were.

Erik September 10, 2008 at 11:15 am


Sorry for your loss. I have friends who are police officers and they are good people. Perhaps in your emotional state you are not understanding the point of the article. Mr. Tucker is making the point that government is not the answer to every problem we face, whether large or small. We as a society have been conditioned to believe that our rulers know better than us regarding the most minute details of our life — including small inconsequential traffic rules. We would be better served, both as a society, and as individuals, if we used common sense to solve our problems (like when to stop at an intersection) rather than rely on government force. In addition, this reliance on government force has caused our freedom to diminish and sets up situations where some less scrupulous police officers and government officials exploit us (fellow citizens) for their own gain.

Vincent Mross September 10, 2008 at 11:43 am

Without a doubt the most absolutely beautiful defense of a “traffic ticket” that I have ever heard (in this case “driving without a license”) was described by a man named Joseph Edwards on Randy Kelton’s Rule Of Law radio show. Listen to the 8/15, 8/22 and 8/29 shows, WOW!

Vincent Mross September 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Oops, forgot a link to above referenced shows:

Curio September 10, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Here’s a point to ponder – many countries that do not have strong enforcement of traffic laws have horrendous traffic accident rates. It is not unusual for these people to merely slow down at red lights and then proceed, nor to drive on sidewalks if necessary to get around traffic, etc. Ask anyone who has spent time in Latin or South America. Is it safe to say this same would occur in the US if the rules were not so strictly enforced?

Hypothetically, if we were “allowed” to roll through stop signs and otherwise make our own decisions as to whether it was safe to stop at red lights or not, would the rate of accidents greatly increase due to the lax attitudes that would inevitably develop (like our southern neighbors)?

(I, like most people, also have my traffic police stories and thus am not condoning all of their activities per se but merely bringing up what I believe is a valid point)

The other part of the argument is that of gray area. I believe that many traffic officers use common sense in traffic situations, i.e. the proverbial “warning”. They technically could ticket you, but understand reality and sensibility and therefore “remind” you of the law. Then you have the others that for various reasons ticket every little offense possible. How do you encourage the former and prevent the latter?

I was ticketed in a small town that depended upon traffic violations as a primary source of revenue, so naturally I was doomed. And I’ve been pulled over in larger metro areas where I was merely “warned”. The problem is how do you encourage the former and prevent the latter? Metro cops obviously have more important things to do and have larger budgets regardless, whereas small town and upscale suburban cops don’t (and may even depend upon the revenue). The irony is, the more congested urban areas are where traffic needs to obey the rules most, and the opposite is true of small towns/upscale suburbs.

lightbearer September 10, 2008 at 3:44 pm

What a terrible theory this author presents, to privatize the police and with free market menality! Profiting over people is not ethical but abusive. Dont fall for this nonsense! Do we want a blackwater police force? We already lost most of our civil liberties!

lightbearer September 10, 2008 at 3:46 pm

What a terrible theory this author presents, to privatize the police and with free market economics! Profiting over people is not ethical but abusive. Dont fall for this nonsense! Do we want a blackwater police force? We already lost most of our civil liberties!

lightbearer September 10, 2008 at 3:48 pm

What a terrible theory this author presents, to privatize the police with free market economics! Profiting over people is not ethical but abusive. Dont fall for this nonsense! Do we want a blackwater police force? We already lost most of our civil liberties!

Ron September 10, 2008 at 4:01 pm

You said it, lightbearer!

We all know how profitable it is for private security forces to rape, kill, and steal from the very people they’re paid to protect. Other “free market” industries are exactly the same way. I had to find a new dentist because mine would bash my teeth out with a nine iron every time I went in for a checkup, thereby ensuring that I’d have to come back.

Also, I took my car to the repair shop the other day, and when I went to pick it up they had let all the air out of my tires, broken off all the door handles, and changed all my radio presets to NPR! I’m sure they made some massive profits off me by doing that, but I’m not sure how.

The worst was when I went to a computer store to buy a new laptop a few weeks ago. When I got it home, I found out that the Windows logo had been drawn on the screen with markers, the keys had no letters on them, and the laptop itself was filled with parts from an old Plinko game. I was outraged! Then, to make matters worse, they wouldn’t fix it or let me return it.

Yes, it’s much more profitable to hose people than to put any energy or effort into satisfying customers. Government really knows what’s best for us. We should put it in charge of everything.

Give me a break.

rube goldberg September 10, 2008 at 4:03 pm

< My point is that this attitude is similar to the police and courts and is not confined to state institutions alone. I know first hand that there is a widespread deeply ingrained belief that risk is unacceptable because "what if something bad happens" and people are too stupid and dangerous to be left to manage themselves (esp on the road) so human nature must conform to institutions rather than the reverse, rationality and common sense be damned!

this is why everything is bailed out and not allowed to fail.

jeff September 10, 2008 at 4:24 pm

You are required have a drivers license,register your vehicle and obey the traffic rules If you are engaged in Commercial activity (transporting persons or goods for hire) ..

otherwise the Traffic Scam by cops and judges
(revenue officers) is a fraud upon the people..

Peter September 10, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Obey the laws. They are there to protect all of us.

No they aren’t.

Baxter September 10, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Factually, if People read the 13th and 14th Amendments carefully, not according to the fraudulent interpretations of the government and schools, they would come to understand that claiming US citizenship is the problem! It is a “subject” [slave] political status into which we are conned to voluntarily claim.

I no longer claim such, and “they” cannot prove such unless I volunteer by stating, where and when I was born.Think folks… Since NO ONE “knows” [legal word] these things, I only answer, “I don’t ‘know’ where, when or to whom I was born.”

I show no ID and claim no “name” but only state “who I am.” Big difference. Using this approach with them has defeated them 100%.

Ask yourself, seriously, “What is a US citizen?” “How does a person become one?”[Surprise, it is NOT by birth!!!] “What are the benefits?” [None that I have found in 68+ years]

Read Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 [1794] The Posterity of the “People” are SOVEREIGN over the government they created and they are NOT US citizens!

Learn WHO you are or your true political status.

josh m September 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm

“Here’s a point to ponder – many countries that do not have strong enforcement of traffic laws have horrendous traffic accident rates. It is not unusual for these people to merely slow down at red lights and then proceed, nor to drive on sidewalks if necessary to get around traffic, etc. Ask anyone who has spent time in Latin or South America. Is it safe to say this same would occur in the US if the rules were not so strictly enforced?” –Curio

I’ll take a stab since no one else has: sure that might occur, but that would not change the point of the article because the failure you’re describing would still be the result of government management.

Som September 11, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Bogomips & Rube,

Thanks to both of you for your feedback. I’m not the first one to detect that there are certain attitudes that affect our entire cultural and political climate. I got the idea from John Taylor Gatto’s essay, the six lesson schoolteacher, and his other writings. Ever since then what he said has been verified in real life for me over and over again.

If you haven’t read his essay/ speech, you can read it here:


If we allow this to go on everywhere, is there any reason not to believe that we would allow sit back and take such an abusive police and court system?? (among an endless list of other absurdities)

curio September 16, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Josh M -

However, MY point was that in the absence of government management, people are prone to drive more dangerously. Therefore do we conclude that government management creates a safer driving environment? Or is there some other variable at work here?

I am not arguing if it is “right” or “wrong”, merely which is safer – govt management or no.

Kevin B September 16, 2008 at 6:53 pm


Obviously there isn’t just the problem with government management of road traffic, but government management of road construction.

The “other variable here” is that the roads are built as publicly-owned-and-operated means of transport, rather than privately-owned-and-operated.

The dangerous environment is created when the government builds the roads in the first place.

Zinzindor September 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Michael asks,

“Are you a road transportation expert?”

– Ah, what Rand used to refer to as “the argument from intimidation.”

” Maybe they would still have a stop sign at that particular point, or maybe their experts would tell them it’s safe to not have one there. ”

– It is irrelevant to ask whether the firm would have a stop sign at any particular corner. They surely would have stop signs, or red lights, or some other method of traffic control. And they surely would not permit customers to selectively decide, on an individual basis, whether they need to comply with any traffic control mechanism.

— Imagine, for example, using a firing range, where shooting at any direction other than the targets is prohibited. Do you believe that the owner would just shrug if the violator insisted, “But I judged that no one would be endangered by me firing backwards.”?

– And no, James, that’s not “flippant speculation.” That’s reasonable deduction and observation about how private markets operate. Try reading some of the literature (e.g., Tannehill “The Market for Liberty” or Friedman “The Machinery of Freedom”).

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: