We’ve Got To Stop Them From Their Continually Dissolving of Detroit Police: A New Libertarians Thoughts on the DPD Situation

Pic of a Vacated Police station

Anybody paying close attention to our city can clearly see police departments in the Detroit area slowly dissolving. The other day on the radio I heard a story of a man in Detroit who shoot 4 men, two whom died. Seeing no police came and there was no nearby police station, the man turned himself into the fire department and even though the fire department themselves called the police there was no police available to arrest this man. Keep in mind Detroit residents pay higher taxes than any other city in the state and all its current local government has allowed them for their continual support, is a continual dissolving of a police department and while its being diminished the citizens have no say. This would not be allowed at all if Detroit would begin to bring in libertarian leadership as Libertarian philosophy sees protection as the one “proper” function of government. Providing police to protect its citizens from criminals, an army to protect them from foreign invaders and courts to protect their legal rights in disputes over property and contracts. Anything else, libertarians see as excessive in government. Its very obvious however that safety and protection is not a main priority to Detroit’s current administration at all. If it were, then where are the works and plans this administration is implementing to ensure it?

What kind of local government would demand higher taxes of its citizens and then think they don’t have to show any improvement in the services they provided with the money they’ve already had. Thats exactly what the Democrat elected officials in Detroit have done once again. This summer Mayor Bing, and his appointed Police Chief Godbee proposed yet another millage, a new tax on the citizens of Detroit once again promising to improve its police force without ever showing any improvement at all in the services they’d already given. If they couldn’t effectively use what they had, then why should they expect more. The principle of Jesus states it best,… when you are “faithful over a little; THEN I will set you over much” (Math 25:23). A grantor won’t even grant money unless the requester has shown he’s done well with what he has. This administration has not done well in even giving its city a “false’ sense of security let alone a real sense of security. And now the Mayor wants to coerce the citizens to even pay more through a tax? How unfair!

Detroit pays the highest taxes in the state now, yet the higher the taxes they pay, the less services its seems to be able to provide . Why does Detroit keep electing a party who can’t even show its sees police protection as a main priority. Its police departments budget was just slashed $75 million, with 10% in cuts to their current salaries, and now their current staffs (who’s pay has just decreased) will now have to INCREASE their work-shifts to 12 hour work days. How do you make service better for the citizens by paying its police department less and then require that same police department to provide more service? Its not even logical ! Is Detroit just going to keep bringing in a party that continues to do things like this?

IT’S TIME OUT !! Its time for an administration who believes police protection should be the city’s MAIN PRIORITY and a government who can get it done quickly BEFORE EVERYBODY HAS BEEN SCARED AWAY.

Unlike Democrats , Libertarians always seek ways to reduce city taxes, so rather then “coerce” Detroit citizens to pay more to develop DPD, a libertarian would institute something like a regular lottery specifically to fund the police department. With a lottery the citizens are not coerced in aiding (so often when they can’t afford it). They can participate voluntarily whenever they’d like, if they’d like, on whatever level they’d like. Everybody would be encouraged to participate (even folks outside the city) not only because of the incentive of winning but because they know is designated to provide them the best police protection possible. Money would be coming in from the citizens who are participating at their own free will. No new taxes. No new city fees. Nobody is angry for participating. and the city doesn’t have to beg the Feds. Everybody’s happy! But we’ve got to get some different ideas in their to get this and other libertarian ideas going. The other party’s will never think out of the box because they’re only committed to do things the way that its been done and unfortunately the way its be done is slowly bringing the development of the Detroit Police Department to a halt.

More than a couple of times over the past couples of years the Democrat leadership of Detroit has laid off its police officers and cut DPD’s budget. Now as a result criminals now feel they own the street. What can we do to stop it? Detroit has got to start looking at getting a different kind of leadership. In looking I recommend it start looking at the Libertarian party, a party with a strong philosophy, and a ton of ideas. Detroit needs leadership like Libertarian leadership. A leadership that will work to reduce citizen taxes. A leadership that will come in with ideas to help citizens …”Live Free”.

Non Intervention Does Not Mean You Shouldn’t Engage in War: ONE Libertarians Perspective on Foreign Policy

A few months back now I, learned that the first element of libertarian foreign policy was “neutrality” or as some call it “non-intervention” and when I heard that, I was 100% with it. I think it originated in libertarian philosophy from its idea that no individual, NO GOVERNMENT, anywhere has a “moral” RIGHT to INTERVENE in my private, personal, “INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS” , as long as my freedoms are not interfering with another’s freedoms. Thats what the libertarian concept of non-intervention is all about. I was with that concept UNTIL I LEARNED that in regards to war and military action, many libertarians were interpreting non-intervention to mean that our country (or our country’s government) should never engage itself in a war, with OR “on behalf of” another country for ANY reason. My immediate thoughts were, I could never stand with anyone who believed in something as strict as that. To me its impractical and a contradiction to the universal laws of non-intervention (which I’ll explain). It also totally ignores the fact that war is sometimes a very necessary evil and I’m sure many libertarians don’t agree and thats quite alright.

Almost ever libertarian I had seen blogging and preaching libertarian philosophy online up to the time I heard this, all seemed to be anti-war (against engaging in war) and total pacifists, carrying this same belief. It also seemed like any libertarian who supported war at all (like Gary Johnson) was somehow considered not “really libertarian” by other libertarians. Being so new and seeing that my own personal beliefs on this issue were turning out to be so very different than the people who prreach this philosophy , I thought it best that I stop publicly documenting my walk here and what I was learning and how I’d apply the principles, until I got a better handle of where I’ stood on what seems to be such a mainstay regarding foreign policy.[Other than two post back in March I haven’t documented anything here in over 5 months -thats how strongly I felt about no longer identifying as libertarian]. After months of pondering and study and knowing how frimly I believe in all the other libertarian principle’s , I am now back, and ready to start posting weekly again about my personal journey and ideas as a new libertarian and an avid believer of the concept of non-intervention. I just now have a very different perspective of it than most and its taken me all of these last 5 months to develop where I stand on the issue.

I see it this way: Non-intervention, in my personal opinion (for whatever its worth) is a universal law of nature meaning … lets see … when I say universal law I mean … a concept which which must be upheld, and whether its understood or not, honored or dishonored, it almost always initiates some consequence in a persons life, be it a negative or positive. Whenever or wherever the law of non-intervention is dishonored or violated the intervenor violating it almost always gives an account or will find themselves with continued unsolicited intervention. It’ not a written law. It is a universal law of nature though, just like “cause and effect” and “sowing and reaping” and almost always brings about some consequence when violated and applies to every man, woman, boy, girl, old or young. Where the law of non-intervention is not upheld it almost always breeds unsolicited intervention. So to benefit from this law, it must be honored and one truly honoring it will hold intervenor’s accountable, as, where intervenor’s are not held accountable, unsolicited intervention is always invited, whether consciously seen or not. Its a universal law in nature.

The biggest believer in this concept of non-intervention is God himself according to scripture. You see it very early in th Genesis where he did not intervene in bad choices to be made by Adam and Eve. He did not intervene in Cains “plan” to murder Abel , BUT when Cain actually intervened in Abel’s life and ended it, God intervened in Cains life and held him accountable. God is a big believer in the laws a non-intervention . He would not have ever intervened in Cains life had Cain not violated the laws of intervention and INTERVENED in the life of Abel … and for that … Cain had to give an account. You see God upholding the laws non-intervention all throughout scripture. He ONLY intervened where the law of intervention had been violated and in Ephesians 5 :1… it says we are to “be imitators of God “. I believe that means we are to honor the laws of non-intervention in the same ways that God does himself and our honoring this law will ALWAYS work to protect our individual freedoms AS LONG AS as intervenor’s are held accountable. Its the “holding intervenor’s accountable” in honor of non-intervention, that so many folks can’t get with. However, how can value be given to a policy of non-intervention if intervener’s are never held accountable and allowed to continually intervene.[This is the only kind of non-interventions policy that I myself will personally ever support …one which will esteem the value of non-intervention and see that intervenor’s are held accountable for intervening ]

I am not an expert in any way or fashion AT ALL regarding any of the wars we are in, are contemplating or have been involved in but as a laymen, new libertarian and now strong believer in the concept of non-intervention, I have formed some surface opinions about some of them.

War in Afghanistan: Regardless of the many different opinions there are regarding who or what triggered that war, on September 11, 2001 there , we were not warring nor had anytime “recently” been at war with Al Qeada terrorist when they came in and broke the law of non-intervention killing hundreds and hundreds of individuals here in our country. As result of their disrespecting the law of non-intervention and being able to hide out in Afghanistan it was inevitable that they had to give an account for that and had they not been allowed to hide out there, the war wouldn’t have been there. So in order to wipe out them out … that war there WAS very necessary. The Talliban or no one else there surrendered them them accountable. We did. The question is … since they have now so long ago been wiped out, and we’ve killed its leaders, why are our troops still fighting there … years later?

War in Iraq: SAME.We were not warring with them at the time this last war began and yes it was communicated that there were “weapons of mass destruction” there which brought along paranoia. Truth is though …. even if we had found their “weapons of mass destruction” we were not warring with them and they had not been interfering with us AT THE TIME, so there was no need for our country to violate the law of non-intervention and make anyone there give an account. So then since we’ve also now killed their leader too who we thought was the threat at the time, and have realized that we were wrong about the WMD , WHY did we stay on?

Comtemplated War in Africa: Joseph Koney Head of the Lord Resistance Army over in Africa has, and is infringing on the individual freedoms of thousands of defenseless women and children there continually raping and killing them for years now and no one over there or anywhere is making him or his army of thousands give an account for their actions. Many say its not our affair but I say it should be an affair for all who honor Non-Intervention as if that army is not made to give an account, it will become empowered and found continually in unsolicited intervention situations that I believe, if continually is gone unchecked, will spread throughout all Africa and other parts of the world. This army is boldly violating what I believe is the universal law of non-intervention and it should be brought down.

Libertarianism to me is all about protecting the freedoms of all individuals and those who value that freedom will stand against those who violate the laws of non-intervention and will work to make them to give an account. No, we are not the worlds police but as libertarians we all should be fighters for individual freedom.

Well …this is a first for me … I have the rest of my life to see if this is a theory I can stand by.

The thoughts of a NEW libertarian on non-intervention.