Rad Geek People's Daily

official state media for a secessionist republic of one

Dr. Anarchy Answers Your Rhetorical Questions

Today’s question comes from The Agitator (2011-01-20), about a recent police raid on a medical marijuana dispensary in the suburbs of Metro Detroit:

Dear Dr. Anarchy:

Earlier this month, police in Oakland County, Michigan raided a medical marijuana dispensary in the town of Oak Park. The deputies came in with guns drawn and bulletproof vests, with at least one wearing a mask.

They made no arrests, but they did clean the place out. The confiscated all of the dispensary’s cash on hand and–in a particularly thuggish touch–also took all of the cash from the wallets and purses of employees and patients.

… Under Michigan’s asset forfeiture law, 80 percent of the cash the deputies seized will go directly to the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department. The other 20 percent goes to the local prosecutor. Medical marijuana is legal under Michigan law but is of course still illegal under federal law. And apparently there’s some debate about the legality of dispensaries. All of which means this particular dispensary will have a hard time proving it earned the seized cash legitimately. I doubt the patients and employees will get their cash back, either. The cost of challenging the seizure is likely several times more than the amount of money most people carry on their person.

In light of all this, Balko asks, So how is this different from armed robbery?

The short answer to the rhetorical question is that it isn’t. The longer answer is that, aside from the gang colors, there are two differences between an official armed robbery like this one, and the stereotypical armed robbery carried out by freelancers.[1] The first difference is that when gangsters without badges rob you, you could in principle go to the police about it and try to get the robbers arrested. But when the gangsters who robbed you are the police, and are happy to arrest you if you complain about the robbery, then who do you go to?

The second difference is that after gangsters without badges rob you, at least they usually let you go on your way; they spend the money on private indulgences, and leave you alone. But when gangsters with badges rob you, they take the money and use it to finance the more raids, more arrests, more brutality, and more efforts to control the behavior of people like you and force you to submit to their insane and arbitrary laws. As Spooner writes in No Treason 6.3.5:

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a protector, and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to protect those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful sovereign, on account of the protection he affords you. He does not keep protecting you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

So, the only difference between police forfeiture raids and the more stereotypical forms of armed robbery is that police forfeiture raids are worse.

  1. [1]Stereotypical, not typical. Armed robbery by government officials is just as typical as armed robbery carried out by freelancers. It’s just not discussed to the same extent.

Monday Lazy Linking

Shameless Self-promotion Sunday

Here’s to a Shameless 2011!

Again, it’s been a while, so let’s make this a good one.

Round here, the past few weeks have mostly been about taking stock, cleaning up, and preparing. I’ve got talks coming up in February and March (more on which, soon), new work to start on for the new year, and some outstanding obligations that I need to get on top of and get cleared out. I have an article on Tucker’s Four Monopolies which is in the works; I’ve also been chasing a couple of fascinating rabbit-holes — like the seven days or so that this 3 character correction to Wikipedia has led me to spend digging through archives, gathering sources, and putting up new material online. (For a quick overview of some of the results, see the gradually accumulating collection of information at From the Margins: C. L. James and at the Fair Use Blog. James — who was tirelessly prolific and incredibly erudite — was once an intellecutal heavy in the movement; but he’s now almost entirely forgotten, by both Anarchists and the mainstream. But he deserves better than that; and if the Internet is good for anything, it is good platform for some diligent un-forgetting of marginalized figures. If any of y’all, or anyone you know, has good access to archives of the Alarm, by the way, be sure to let me know. I am informed that James wrote some labor-songs for the Knights of Labor, and I’m avidly seeking the chance to find some samples.)

And you? You know the deal. What have you been up to since the New Year? Write anything? Leave a link and a short description for your post in the comments. Or fire away about anything else you might want to talk about.

Friday Lazy Linking

Revolving Door

(Via Sheldon Richman.)

From Zachary A. Goldfarb’s recent article for the Washington Post (2010-12-30) on that Left-wing radical Obama and his revolutionary socialist administration:

The president's recently departed budget director is joining Citigroup.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank's derivatives expert is joining Goldman Sachs.

And numerous investigators from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are joining Wall Street's top law firms.

The vast overhaul of financial regulations and the renewed intensity of investigations into white-collar crime has been a boon for regulators, prosecutors and financial policymakers looking to cash in on their government experience and contacts.

In recent months, prominent officials from the White House, Justice Department, SEC, banking regulators and other agencies, both federal and state, have been walking through the proverbial revolving door to join Goldman, Citi, other financial companies and top law firms in Washington and New York.

— Zachary A. Goldfarb (2010-12-30), Regulators are finding opportunities at firms looking for government experience, in the Washington Post

You might think that I am going to say that all this poses a conflict of interest for the regulators. (Certainly, that’s how the Washington Post puts it.) But I’m not going to say that. That’s the conventional way of talking about it, when it comes up, but the conventional way of talking about it is nonsense. There is no conflict, unless you believe some very unrealistic things about the interests of government (even a progressive government) and its politically-appointed regulators.

I don’t: there is no conflict; they were already all in this together. This is nothing more than business- and politics-as-usual, and the state-capitalist system is functioning exactly as designed.

See also:

Anticopyright. All pages written 1996–2025 by Rad Geek. Feel free to reprint if you like it. This machine kills intellectual monopolists.