One Mexican Town Finds More Security by Throwing Out the Police


KenK's picture

Amigos enhorabuena! Detroit could solve its current problems by declaring its autonomy from Michigan and the USG. They could start up a huge 24/7 open air market place for items the white suburbanites and Canadians across the river desire and are willing to purchase and would if not for the entrenched bourgeois elite’s blue-nose laws that permeate the rest of Michigan. Need some liquor on Sunday or after 2am? No problem. Desire a few snorts of crank and a quick blowjob? Step right up. Need a sawed-off and few boxes of ammo with out any "imperial entanglements" from Lansing or the feds? Cash or credit? Perhaps the suburbanites have some dope, raw milk, or other contraband that they wish to sell, but without the risks of arrest? Head on down mofos. As with this Mexican village, Motown is ethnically homogenous, has its own traditions, and is largely beyond the laws of the rest of the state for the most part too, and unless the gubner is willing to send in the MNG to restore the state's claim of sovereign fealty … but oh wait they're all over in Af/Pak. Never mind. It could work and its been done before.

Samarami's picture

You bring up some excellent points of study, Ken -- as does the subject CSM story.

The first point would be the use of the term "it" in your first sentence. It describes a specific area upon which the white man (for my lack of personal knowledge of Detroit history) embedded the handle "Detroit". Begs the question: does 'Detroit' exist? Or are city limits merely fictitious lines in the sand -- within which large numbers of folks live and produce and exchange and bear young -- some "indigenous", some immigrants from afar?

This brings up a sub-study, since almost everybody's ancestors came from "somewhere else", unless you want to accept the theory those folks "evolved" right "where they is".
So "indigenous" is iffy as a useful descriptor of individuals. Those writing the "indigenous" article over at Wicky also had some problems with the term.

But to the first point, I come down on the side that says all city, state and "national" boundaries are apocryphal and have no legitimacy. To me.

But I am a sovereign state. I'm free. My state is bordered entirely by folks who believe in and accept without question political boundaries. That makes my sovereignty an interesting challenge. Because even members of my own family can't grasp liberty and freedom as I grasp it. So I spend much of my time navigating around and through dear friends and loved family members who staunchly challenge my sovereignty.

There are, in fact a fair number of Root Strikers who give me a run for my money over my "sovereignty". I'll be the first to declare that this is indeed the place to have that argument -- because in the end I throw in with Mr. Davies with the desire to end political entities altogether. One man and one woman at a time.

But I am here. The time is now. I've got to be free today. Within my defined territory.

I'm 77. I don't have a lot of future or the impetus to set the goal for a time for you or anybody else to become free. Don't get me wrong -- I'm a strong proponent of setting goals. Nothing happens until one sets a goal and takes steps toward its achievement.

However, I have no control over you or any other human being -- or what criteria you or my neighbor might have to define liberty. I'm with you, Ken: there is no earthly "authority" to cause Sunday liquor sales to be "illegal". Or crank, or crack, or sexual activities. Making firearms "illegal" creates violence -- it never curtails violence. The raw milk ban is fascism pure and simple -- set up to enhance political favoritism.

I try to present a good example for liberty for my family, my neighbors and all my friends. That's the best I can do. Tonight.


Glock27's picture

Samarami, "Tonight.", I believe should read "Checkmate!!" Guess it is a matter of personal opinion on my part.

mhstahl's picture


Doesn't that pretty well describe Detroit as it is now?

I'm being serious-despite the absurd corruption of the local government(such that it is), there are some real positives. I've posted that almost no one bothers with property tax, you can buy raw milk, and there was a vigilante group that was hunting(ed?) a pedophile/murderer(I have no idea what happened to him, but I suspect it was most unpleasant.) And of course, one can, as always, have a toke, a blow job, and leave with a bottle of Jack and an AK at 4am on Easter if you wish.

Unfortunantly, thugs run wild while decent people still (rightly) fear the feral police should they defend themselves. I, frankly, cannot imagine Detroit not improving if the cops and bureaucrats just stayed in the suburbs(where they mostly live anyway as I understand it.)

KenK's picture



When I used the term "Detroit" I meant the community of people that resides in the geographical area on the western side of the Detroit River, south of 8-Mile Road, east of I-275, and north of River Rouge, and not to the statist entity the so-called "City of Detroit". 

Samarami's picture

And I, Ken, had no intention of denigrating your use of the term. I was leading into my rant about political boundaries: city limits, state lines, national borders, etc., -- all fictitious lines in the sand. If Jim Davies is correct -- and I hope he is -- and all political entities have been renounced and abandoned by 2025, free folks living in that part of the world will still say, "I'm from Detroit" with pride.

Nothing wrong with Detroit. Lots wrong with governmentalism.


Glock27's picture

As I have believed for some time, the thrust of debate is more centrally focused on the giant maggot (government) than it does on individual freedom. Which comes first? Individual freedom or freedom from government? I am developing a deeper disgust for any form of political manipulation of the people. Recently some brain dead representative wanted to tax e-mails. The joke use to be they will be taxing the air we breath. I am grateful Gore never made it or that could have occurred. I hold no hope for 2025, but then for me it will not make any difference.

I am interested in what happens in the U.S. in 2025, should be renounced and abandoned. What occurs here may have an entirely different impact on how other countries act.

Samarami's picture


    "...Which comes first? Individual freedom or freedom from government?..."

For the answer to that question I'm going to suggest, Glock, that you go back to a book you started (I never heard if you finished it): "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne. If you don't have it printed out, read it online. Type the title (lengthy as it is) + pdf and a copy should be about the top choice on page 1 of the google search. Read through the first section: "Traps". Study it. Then go on and finish the book.

Because you could just as well have asked the question: "Which comes first? Individual freedom or freedom from thieves?" (I'd be referring to free-market, non-government thieves here). Free market thieves are easier to deal with -- primarily because we don't perceive them to be "giant maggot" large.

Harry Browne had a way of assuring us that "The Government" isn't "giant maggot" at all. It's just a group of relatively harmless (on an individual basis), timid men and women who rely upon people like you and me to docilely acquiesce to their perceived "power".

They're not so difficult for free, sovereign individuals to navigate around once s/he gets shut of the fear of their assumed invincibility.


Glock27's picture

Glock27...P.S. Molon Labe!!!!