Cops and Criminals.

Some may notice that I have respect for the rule of law and law enforcement, but I’m also not morally adverse to certain forms of criminality.  This apparition of a contradiction is consistent in liberty.  As I’ve stated on other occasions that have likely gone unread, universal interest is liberty.  At all times all people want to do what they want to do.  This is always true.  So long as each creature’s liberty doesn’t interfere with the liberty of anyone else all creatures can do what they want to do and this is ideal.  Individual’s can impose without directly imposing.  Individual circumstances are the product of systems and systems are the product of collective participation and consent.  This means people who benefit from a system that imposes trapping circumstances on others, and engaged in collective imposition.  Their ignorance, indifference, and participation is a product of their advantage within the system where they enjoy themselves instead of question.    

Criminality is most often evidence of injustice in society not the introduction of it.  Poverty and income inequality increase the likelihood of criminality.  The lower the income group a male is born into the more likely they are to end up in prison. (1)  The pre-incarceration household median income of an incarcerated person is $21,000 per year, which is roughly a third the median household income. (2)  There are numerous studies that confirm the obvious, that desperation produces crime. (3)  A lack of opportunities to make money and an environment in which to develop in is collective imposition through consent and participation in the systems that produce these disadvantages.  

1:  Lucius Couloute, March 22, 2018, “New Data Highlights Pre-Incarceration Disadvantages”.  Prison Policy Initiative. 

2: Bernadette  Raybuy and Daniel Kopf, 7/9/15  “Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the  Pre-incarceration Incomes of the Imprisoned”.

3: Luke Fleming 2011, “The Relationship Between Crime and Poverty: A Cross Section Analysis of the World”.  Bryant Economic Research Paper Vol. 4 No.7 Spring 2011.  “Income inequality is positively related to all three types of crime (robbery, assault and homicide).  As money is distributed more evenly, all three types of crime should decrease.”

Obviously I don’t have a problem with criminal activity that is unimposing that creates an economic opportunity for disadvantaged people.  I’m not a proponent of marijuana legalization because it takes away or reduces an opportunity for disadvantaged people to make money.  Legalization creates a regulatory environment where only people with access to large amounts of money can sell it, and it also drives down the price.  In 2008 you could sell a quarter pound for 1000 to 1200, sell a pound for 3500 which created income opportunities for people to sell marijuana in smaller quantities.  Today, a quarter pound of the same quality can be bought for about $300 or much less in states where marijuana is legal.  This is one once lucrative opportunity for disadvantaged people to earn money that was lost to legalization.         

As I’ve written elsewhere, supply of a drug does not create demand for it. (  Drug abuse and dependency is an opportunity for the user to cope with their circumstances in life, and for the distributor to experience liberty in time and money he is otherwise without the opportunity to experience.  Some drug abuse is not a product of being economically disadvantaged, but related to other dissatisfactions, like spending most of your time working a job you’d prefer not to be working, or dissatisfaction spawned from the uncertainty that is produced in the mind from living on a planet that is wall to wall deception and denial.  Dissatisfaction stemming largely from a lack of opportunity, as people with worthwhile opportunities that provide a good balance of money, time, and liberty typically don’t require anything to regularly enhance their mood.  A lack of opportunity doesn’t account for all drug dependency, but is the cause of drug dependency being widespread.  

Crimes of imposition, theft, robbery, assault, murder, I typically don’t condone, but every set of circumstances is different.  Although responsibility for crimes against property, like theft and robbery are the responsibility of the individual, there is usually general responsibility resting with the public, since most who commit these crimes are responding to circumstances that are a product of consent based systems that created the circumstances that motivated the crime.  Even if the person is stealing or robbing to get drugs, the circumstances he or she was born into likely contributed to the drug dependency.  This doesn’t mean I’m pro-theft and it doesn’t absolve the perpetrator of responsibility for imposing on the specific individual, but we can’t deny society’s general responsibility for producing circumstances that motivate property crime. 

I’ve written on specific subjects (, and on the trend more generally ( of the excessive use of force by police.  If you read the articles I do not think excessive use of force by police is a problem.  I don’t believe most examples demonstrate excessive force, and even if they did, there are too few examples to represent a problem.  Usually there are less than 10 a year that make national news, and even if you have 1000 controversial examples there are 55 million police contacts per year.  Meaning these incidents do not represent normal policing and do not represent a problem beyond ensuring the incidents are resolved appropriately.  If I did think excessive force was a problem, beyond what could be accomplished legislatively to better regulate the use of force which is something I propose (, I’d be focused on creating better opportunities for the underclasses, since their access to money and time is typically what will determine whether or not they commit a crime.  Less crime leads to fewer suspects who resist arrest,this means force is required less, and this decreases the chances of inadvertent and intentional excessive force.  

One crime I do not have any sympathy for is sexual assault.  By this I mean actual rape, not an advance that is rebuffed and not repeated as some believe represents sexual assault.  The reason being is there is no circumstantial necessity for it.  There is a market for sex and people who will do anything you want to do for money.  Meaning if you cannot find a partner who is willing based on the mutual benefit of the act, and you can find a partner who values the money more than the time and energy required to perform the act.   

On protestution itself I am a person who understands that the basis for human interaction is the exchange of value for value and the measure is feelings.  The exchange of behavior that produces positive feelings in both participants.  The difference with a prostitute is the prostitute is exchanging behavior (sex) that produces positive feelings for the customer, for the feelings associated with the money itself and the feelings he or she experiences through the money’s purchasing power.  Procurement of money requires some amount of time and energy, the same as furnishing a person with behavior that produces positive feelings.  Since in both situations we’re exchanging positive feelings and time and energy, there’s no core distinction between prostitution and a client or two people who know each other engaged in a sexual act for mutual satisfaction that act provides.  In both cases its time and energy and the feelings produced.  

Morally, two people engaged in any behavior they are both consenting to that does not impact the liberty of anyone else is a good act.  Prohibition of prostution is largely based on antiquated religious principles or other subjective ideas concerning what is appropriate for a woman to do with her own body.  There’s a great deal of passive prostitution, where women have a regular guy who will buy them stuff, a regular guy who takes them places, a regular guy who is handy and so on and so forth.  She may have sex with these guys and the root of her willingness to have sex with them is because of what they do for her materially, where she probably wouldn’t associate with them, much less have sex with them if they didn’t do these other things.  Many long term relationships rely heavily on the liberty (financially) one person can provide to the other.  

The last view on crime I’ll express is an extension of the previous crime.  That crime is pimping.  If it is voluntary it isn’t a problem.  In fact if the pimp is having sex with the prostitutes than a pimp is merely a prostitute to the prostitute.  A prostitute has sex for money and the pimp has sex with the prostitute for money.  Of course the relationship entails other behavioral exchanges that produce positive feelings including financial responsibility for the prostitutes by the pimp, and stimulation through social interaction.  If the relationship is voluntary, there is nothing morally wrong with it.  The difference between a husband and wife where the husband controls the finances and a pimp and a prostitute is what the people involved in these relationships do to get money.  Obviously if it is not voluntary, then we’re back to the failure of systems to provide people quality opportunities to prevent circumstances that produce the exploitation of others against their will for income.  

To avoid responding to other narrow inferences later, I do not purchase sex.  Not because I’m morally opposed to it, but because it isn’t a good deal at nearly any price.  For me, I believe women should want to have sex with me, since the typical quality of my performance creates at the very least equal value, and usually greater value than her performance for me.  A good part of sex for me is knowing I’ve performed well which carries with it positive feelings that linger after the act has concluded.  Using the services of a prostitute precludes the potential to feel good afterwards for having performed well.  If I can reach the same conclusion without spending money once I’ve finished I’m going to regret having spent the money.  Finally, I have a strong aversion to condoms.  I’m not justifying prostitution because I use prostitutes or because I am a pimp, I’m providing an explanation for why it isn’t morally wrong and I don’t have an issue with it.  I’m also providing an explanation as to why I don’t use the service despite not having an issue with it.  

I have respect for the rule of law and understand law as being an essential component to liberty.  Today, where an opinion is counted equal to or greater than a fact, law remains the only space on this planet where words have meaning and evidence is required to establish fact.  Unfortunately the rule of law is only as just as those who create the legislation and the opportunities available to the disadvantaged.  We live in a republic where we delegate the duty of creating laws to very few citizens.  Delegation of government is not the same as representation in government.  Before most candidates have a legitimate chance of being elected, they must first be selected by industry who invests in candidates to be remunerated in legislation and policy. (  People in the United States first inherit laws that they had no input in the creation of.  Next laws are created where people have very little to no input in the creation of. (  While I understand the necessity of law and an ideal version of it, what exists is people who are governed by laws they did not consent to, and people living in disadvantages that necessitate crime.  I stand with the cop as well as with the criminal, while never experiencing a contradiction.  I respect the criminal’s decision to take risk to advance his or her liberty, while I respect the authority of the law to protect the liberty of the public.  If the criminal imposes, it’s partially due to the circumstances imposed by the public.