Libertarian Radio Host Defends Nevada Shooters, Says Killing Cops Isn’t Murder

kokeshMost people who follow me already know that I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the Libertarian party.  Not that I loathe all Libertarians (I am friends with a couple), but generally it’s safe to say that if I met 100 random Libertarians, I would probably be unable to stand at least 90 of them.

Though I am always willing to give someone a chance, I just find me and Libertarians don’t always mesh.  I think it’s this belief they seem to have that their ideology is the only one for true salvation – yet I always joke that if I were to ask 10 Libertarians to define what it is to be a Libertarian, I’d probably get 10 different definitions.

Well after reading about the Libertarian who defended the actions of the two Las Vegas shooters who killed three people, two of whom were cops, my opinion about Libertarians isn’t likely to change anytime soon.

It’s been said that the two shooters might have been inspired by the radical gun rants by Adam Kokesh.

Kokesh insisted that the two shooters essentially weren’t murderers because they were driven to do what they did because the “authority has become a homicidal institution against freedom.”

He also said that the killing of the two police officers wasn’t “murder” because cops are likely to kill people.

“Let’s say someone is going around stabbing people, like just stabbing people,” Kokesh said. “It’s not murder to kill someone in that situation. And has been pointed out about the Vegas shooting, when you have police officers that are going around and doing violent things all day long, and then they take a break for lunch, well, it doesn’t mean all of the sudden they’re innocent or they’re being peaceful because they’re taking a break from all of their other anti-freedom, rights-violating violence.”

Basically by that pathetic “logic” he justifies these murders by assuming that these two cops had either unjustly killed or would have eventually.

Wait, aren’t Libertarians all about the Constitution?  Doesn’t our Constitution have something in it about a justice system?  You know, the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing.

But he didn’t stop there.

“Think of how many lives might have been saved by this incident. How many people would these cops have killed had they not been killed?” he asked. “We can only hope that some of the officers in America are listening, if you care about your own safety, to understand that you are hurting people, and you can only push them so far before they hit a breaking point.”

There really aren’t words to describe the disdain I have for this person.  I put him roughly in the same category that I do members of the Westboro Baptist Church.  Just true bottom-feeding scum of human existence.

Because that’s exactly what he is.

About Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

  • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

    vote rightwing!!!!

  • Matthew Reece

    Perhaps you should educate yourself on what libertarianism (i.e. anarcho-capitalism) is before you bash it. For example, a true libertarian will denounce the Constitution as a slave contract. Also, Kokesh did call the shooters murderers for killing the person in Wal-Mart later. As for the idea of using force in self-defense against police, I recommend Christopher Cantwell and Larken Rose on the subject, as they go in to far more detail and explain the case better.

    • poppaDavid

      The two idiots initiated violence against two human beings who happen to be employed by a police department. That is a violation of the stated libertarian principles. The killers were not protecting anyone or anything. Either denounce the violent killing of three people or renounce the non-initiation of violence tenet.

      • Matthew Reece

        Police are aggressors, therefore using force to defend against them is not aggression. The killers were protecting the entire community from two people who make a living by initiating the use of force to carry out the writings of violent sociopaths who win popularity contests. (At least until they went to Wal-Mart; then they did become murderers when they shot a civilian.)

      • poppaDavid

        Saying that “police are aggressors” is like saying that “anarchists are bomb carrying terrorists”. The real truth is determined by the real evidence.

        Please provide your evidence that these two particular human beings ever initiated the use of force against someone.

        The evidence, so far, says that they were doing nothing different from the “Open Carry Texas” people. Shall we start shooting them on sight?

      • Matthew Reece

        Saying that “police are aggressors” is a logical fact. The “Open Carry Texas” people do not make a living by initiating the use of force to carry out the writings of violent sociopaths who win popularity contests. Government police do because that is their job. If they refuse to enforce the whims of politicians, they will be fired. But even failing that, a government police officer who does no direct initiatory violence is still receiving stolen money as payment because taxation is theft.

      • poppaDavid

        There is no “logical fact” present in your statement. You offer an opinion, nothing more. Please produce evidence that these two humans had initiated force against innocent people. So far, you are ALL Bias and NO Fact.

        I happen to live in a community where the population has collectively hired police to protect our lives and property. Neither you nor Christopher Cantwell has any right to tell us that we cannot hire them.

        You say that someone “who does no direct initiatory violence is still receiving stolen money”. We discussed this months ago. You are the recipient of stolen property because you claim to own real estate. Does that mean you volunteer to be a target for murder? Get real. The penalty for theft isn’t a death sentence. Under libertarian principles the punishment for theft is loss of the stolen object and some financial penalty for diminished income or value.

      • Matthew Reece

        Government police officers sign up to initiate force on behalf of politicians, and to receive as payment money which is stolen through initiatory force or the threat thereof (which counts as initiatory force). This may be interpreted as a declared threat by police officers against all civilians in the jurisdiction of their police department. If they refuse to do this after being hired, they will be fired for not performing their duty. Thus it is a logical fact that police are aggressors.

        Did every single person in your community agree to this? If there is even one dissenter, then it is immoral to force such a person to accept this service or pay for its provision. But if this is a private police operation which is funded voluntarily, and everyone is free to stop supporting this operation and hire a competing police operation for protection if they so choose, then there is no problem.

        We did discuss stolen property, and I made clear that the guilt for crimes must die with the people who committed them. A Cherokee cannot say that I should surrender my property because my ancestors drove his ancestors from it 200 years ago because there is no way to know what would have happened to the property without such an event, no way to punish the people who had a part in the criminal act, and therefore no way to restore what should have happened by libertarian principles. (Though this may be a bad example because I am a small part Cherokee.)

      • poppaDavid

        To paraphrase your first paragraph, substituting your offered private police force.

        [The private] “police officers sign up to initiate force on behalf of [their customers ], enforcing their edicts, whatever they may be, rather than simply dealing with situations where a person or property is harmed, and to receive as payment money which [may have been] stolen through initiatory force or the threat thereof (which counts as initiatory force) [as directed by their customers].
        “This may be interpreted as a declared threat by [private] police officers against all civilians [as directed by their customers]. If they refuse to do these things after being hired, they will be fired for not performing their duty. Thus it is a logical fact that [private] police are aggressors.”

        You statements are equally true or equally false when applied to both public and private police departments. Refer to the history of the private Pinkerton Police force for examples.

        When we discussed real estate, you wished that the crime of theft remained with the original thief and didn’t transfer to the person who knowingly received the stolen goods. You wished that the crime of theft ceased to be a crime if the real owner was dead or unable to hire a private police force. You wished that real estate could be claimed away from historic owners.

      • poppaDavid

        Did everyone agree? No. The rules for establishing taxes and other regulations have been in place in our community since before any of the current residents were born. Everyone who has chosen to live here came under those rules when they arrived here. If they don’t like them, they are free to withdraw from the rules by withdrawing from the community. Just as you are free to withdraw from your community, your state and this nation. When you chose to stay, you voluntarily chose to be under those rules.

        When talking about land ownership you contend that the guilt dies with the people who committed the crime, and no way to restore what should have happened. Apply the same standard to federal and state governments. The guilt for stealing personal rights dies with the people who committed it and there is no way to restore what should have happened. Logically, if native Americans cannot recover their rightful land ownership, you don’t get to recover your personal rights.

    • dude

      It doesn’t matter what a ‘true’ libertarian is. It is so far beyond the point, it is silly to try and make it relevant. These people were Ron Paul loving, Von Mises Institute twisted, Alex Jones Disciple, Libertarians.
      You (Libertarians) can’t use them to further you agenda and then disown them. Not everyone is as stupid as you believe society to be. We won’t let you hide in the shadows forever. There will be a reckoning and people will be held responsible.

  • Tillmann Puschka

    you’d think that cops, of all people, would have a great interest in getting this gun problem under control, but cops themselves often come from the furthest, most obscure corners of right wing authoritarian ideology. perhaps they should concentrate on profiling white males who are armed and give minorities a break for a change.

  • MLR

    My brother is a cop, has been for almost 20 yrs and he’s never had to draw his gun yet. He has never killed anyone. This Kokesh needs to be in jail for encouraging violence against others.

  • WSClark

    Is this what we have become?