Episode 307 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: Harvard professor Elizabeth Bartholet’s attack on homeschooling; the need to do more than simply reform the police; defending your property like the Roof Koreans in 1992; why your property should be your autonomous zone; and more. (Please excuse the audio anomalies that occur a few times throughout.)Open This Content
There’s a correct way to protest injustice and there’s a wrong way.
You may have recently noticed people in several big cities doing it the wrong way. Although, perhaps people pretending to side with the protesters were intentionally making the protesters look bad — it’s hard to know which.
I’ve been writing about, and opposing, police brutality for years. It’s an important topic. When someone commits wrong while using the defense “I was just doing my job,” I’m among the first to reject the excuse.
Don’t hide your contempt for human life behind your job. A badge can’t grant extra rights and shouldn’t shield bad guys from consequences.
Fighting against a wrongful kidnapping — whether by a freelance kidnapper or by someone committing the ritual euphemistically called an “arrest” — is not a legitimate reason to be killed. Any protest triggered by such a death is justified.
However, if your protest targets the wrong people by violating the life, liberty, and property of people who weren’t the problem, you are behaving no differently than those you protest.
Rioting is the wrong way to protest. Looting, arson, and vandalism are even worse. Blocking traffic will also turn opinion against you. At that point, you’re no longer on the side of justice and I want nothing to do with you. I might agree with every point you are protesting, but I will stand against any rioting or looting. You’ll lose your chance to have another person on your side.
Multiply this effect by thousands and you might see why it’s a bad idea to treat everyone as your enemy.
Don’t harm your own cause. Don’t drive people away if you want them to agree with you.
You’ll also risk wasting your life by forcing people to defend themselves and their property from you.
Your life matters. Act like it matters to you. To be treated as though your life doesn’t matter is wrong, whether or not your treatment is recognized as a crime.
Other people’s lives matter, too. For someone to take a life when the death wasn’t necessary to defend the life, liberty, or property of innocent victims is wrong even if your job allows it or you believe your cause justifies it.
I have no love for police, but they are no worse than the rioters, vandals, and looters. I won’t choose sides in that battle but will stand with those who refuse to violate other people in any way. It’s the right thing to do.Open This Content
Autonomous zones are suddenly all the rage.
I’m all for setting up autonomous zones, but not if you steal other people’s private property to do it. That’s what political governments do, and it’s wrong. (Government “property” already belongs to you so it can’t count.)
Your property is– or should be– an autonomous zone, whether it’s your house or your business. You rule that zone as supreme dictator (if living with others, as supreme co-dictators)– at least until you choose to voluntarily open it to others, in which case you can’t just violate visitors’ rights because you want to. If you do this you’re no different than any other political government.
But as long as it’s your legitimately-owned private property and you don’t open it to visitors, it should be yours to control completely.
No representatives of any other government allowed in unless you explicitly permit it on a case by case basis. No cops. No “tax” collectors. No inspectors. None of them. They have no right to violate your autonomous zone in an “official capacity” for some other organization that has no legitimate claim on your property (like a town, county, state, or country).
A “property tax” is a yearly ransom imposed by these thieves who have no legitimate claim to your property– but who will steal it and murder you for resisting. Be careful dealing with this kind of robber. Their gang is large, stubborn, and heavily armed.
If you use your property to violate the life, liberty, or property of others, they have the right to defend themselves from you. You can’t make a rule to take away their right to do so– again, this is a tactic political governments try to get away with. So, act wisely and ethically, unlike they do.
You might even join with others to create a larger autonomous zone– as long as it is by unanimous consent. That’s more difficult, and not necessary.
No one has a higher claim on your property than you do– not even if legislation and policies pretend otherwise.
Your home is your autonomous zone; your castle. Never forget it. How you choose to act on this knowledge is your business.Open This Content
A common tactic from those who want to at least appear to have an argument against abolishing the police is to either claim that they themselves are incapable of protecting their own life, liberty, or property, or to try to scapegoat someone else as being incapable.
Plus, when you try to blame others for your desire to keep “employing” the gang, it’s rude!
I’ve seen enough examples of kids, small women, the elderly, and the disabled protecting themselves and others from archation (and so have you) that I don’t buy that anyone who isn’t completely helpless is incapable. It’s a coward’s lie.
Maybe some don’t want to accept the responsibility, but they can.
It’s not your job to coddle those who refuse, but you can if you want– at your own expense. It doesn’t give anyone the right to enslave everyone else for their imagined weaknesses.
Yes, there are some who are truly incapable of defending themselves, feeding themselves, or wiping their own butts. Nice people take care of this kind of person, sometimes for money– but society doesn’t revolve around their inability. That would be like living in a prison established to make certain that no one could be any more capable than the least capable among us. I’m not going to live that way.
Refusing to consider abolishing the police based on the lie that people who are otherwise capable can’t protect themselves is antisocial, unethical, and statist (but I repeat myself).Open This Content
The riots of the spring of 2020 are far from without precedent in the United States. Indeed, they seem to happen once a generation at least. The 1992 Los Angeles Riots are such an example of these “generational riots.” And while most people know about the riots, less known – though quite well known at the time – were the phenomenon of the so-called “Roof Koreans.”
The Roof Koreans were spontaneous self-defense forces organized by the Korean community of Los Angeles, primarily centered in Koreatown, in response to violent and frequently racist attacks on their communities and businesses by primarily black looters and rioters during the Los Angeles Riots of 1992. Despite their best efforts, over 2,200 Korean-owned businesses were looted or burned to the ground during the riots. It is chilling to imagine how many would have suffered the same fate had the Koreans not been armed.
Standing on the rooftops of Koreatown shops they and their families owned, clad not in body armor or tactical gear, but instead dressed like someone’s nerdy dad, often smoking cigarettes, but always on alert, the Roof Koreans provide a stirring example of how free Americans of all races can defend their own communities without relying upon outside help.
The Koreans of Los Angeles were the ultimate marginalized minority group. They were subject to discrimination and often victimized by the black community of the city. Due to language barriers and other factors, they lacked the political clout of other minority groups, such as the large Mexican community of Los Angeles County. This in spite of their clear economic success in the city beginning in the 1970s and 80s.
The reasons for the tensions between the Korean and black communities of Los Angeles pre-dates the riots, which were largely just the match that ignited the powder keg that had been this region of Los Angeles for years. To understand what happened in Koreatown in 1992, it is necessary to understand much more than simply the Rodney King trial and the resulting riots.
The Roots of Korean Business Ownership in Black Communities
How is it that the Korean-American community of Los Angeles ended up owning so much property in what were largely black neighborhoods? The answer, ironically, lies in a previous riot, the Watts Riot of 1965. This riot, which included six full days of arson and looting, was kicked off when a black man was arrested for drunk driving.
The riots occurred roughly at the same time that the Koreans started showing up in America. This meant that, among other things, businesses and real estate were very cheap to purchase. The newly arrived Korean immigrants began buying up the businesses that no one else wanted. By the 1980s, it wasn’t limited to Los Angeles – Koreans were dominating the mom-and-pop shops from coast to coast. But the resentment in the City of Angels was growing.
Prologue: The Death of Latasha Harlins
While it was not the start of tensions in the city between these two communities, the killing of Latasha Harlins in 1991 certainly ratcheted the situation up to a new level.
Harlins, whose personal life is a hard-luck story that does not bear repeating here, was 15 at the time when she was shot and killed by Korean shopkeeper Soon Ja Du, a 51-year-old woman born in Korea. Du generally didn’t even work in the store, a task that typically fell on her husband and her son. However, that day she was covering for her husband who was outside in the family’s van.
Du claimed that Harlins was trying to steal a $1.79 bottle of orange juice, but witnesses said they heard Du call Harlins a slur and heard Harlins say she planned to pay for the juice, with money in hand. After reviewing video tape footage, the police agreed with the witnesses. Video footage further showed Du grabbing Harlins by her sweatshirt and backpack.
Harlins responded by striking Du twice, which knocked the latter to the ground. Harlins started to back away, prompting Du to throw a stool at her. The two struggled over the juice before Harlins went to leave. Du went behind the counter and grabbed a revolver, firing at a retreating Harlins from behind from three feet away. Harlins was killed instantly by a bullet to the back of the head.
Billy Heung Ki Du, Ja’s husband, rushed into the store after hearing the gunshot. His wife asked where Harlins was before she fainted. Mr. Du then called 911 to report an attempted holdup.
Mrs. Du was charged with voluntary manslaughter, a charge that can carry up to 16 years in prison. At trial, she testified on her own behalf. The jury recommended the maximum sentence, which the judge rejected, instead giving Mrs. Du time served, five years probation, 500 hours of community service and a $500 fine. The California Court of Appeals upheld the sentence about a week before the riots began in a unanimous decision. Harlins’ family received a settlement of $300,000.
The case wasn’t the first example of tensions between the two communities, but it was a microcosm for them and perhaps the worst from an optics perspective. In 1991, the Los Angeles Times reported that there were four shootings in the span of just over four months involving a Korean shooter and a black target. The store was eventually burned down during the riots, never to reopen.
That same year, there was an over 100-day boycott of a Korean-American-owned liquor store that ended when the owner was effectively bullied into selling his store to a black owner. Then-Mayor Tom Bradley, who many blamed for the riots, was instrumental in coming to this “settlement” which chased a Korean owner out of the area.
Episode 298 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following entries to r/shitstatistssay: zarthrag writes, “Hate, and any of its manifestations is against the NAP. Hate speech isn’t just speech, it’s a form of aggression”; ShambhalaOrangeJuice writes, “People have a right to destroy chain buildings… because that is a part of the establishment which has oppressed them without respite”; CTR555 writes, “As far as I’m concerned, there are two types of people in America: people who vote for the Democratic nominee, and bad people”; and JimJam28 writes, “I don’t believe there is a ‘creator’ who endowed us with rights. There are no rights in nature. We decide as a society what rights should exist and how to properly protect those rights.”Open This Content