Sunday, December 2, 2012

The U.S. Has Perfected Good Cop / Bad Cop

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

The U.S. government has perfected the Good Cop / Bad Cop routine.

For those who aren't familiar with the technique, two cops (usually when interrogating a suspect) cooperate with one another, in order to achieve a result. However, the cops make it appear that they are at odds with one another.

One acts as the Good Cop, by nicely talking with the suspect, and making it look like he's on the suspect's side, while the Bad Cop acts as if he's ready to wring the suspect's neck. They're working towards the same goal, but the presentation to the suspect appears otherwise.

Well, the U.S. government does the same thing, but it operates on a much larger scale, against 300 million cash cows Americans.

And boy, do they have it down to a science.

The routine consists of two parties, Republican and Democrat, working together towards a mutual goal (the strengthening of the welfare/warfare state) while constantly appearing to be at odds with one another.

Go ahead, turn on a talk show right now. A Republican and Democrat are probably bickering at one another right this second.

It's really a brilliant system (in an evil way) because the routine is cloaked in the veneer of democracy.  "The People" get to pick their poison. That they're picking poison, no matter what, doesn't matter to them. What's important is that they're picking it.

Call the whole thing freedom...wave a few American flags...and it's game, set & match!

To break the routine down into more detail, it works like this: The party that is out of power acts as the Good Cop. The party in power is the Bad Cop who's blatantly crushing your freedom and individuality.

So right now, Obama is running wild, and the innocent little Republican lambs are sympathizing with the victims. They feel your pain. But be sure, they're working their tails off for a "smaller" and "more limited government". While Obama runs wild, their trying to do their best to laso him in.

Rewind back to 2008...

Bush was running wild, and the innocent little Democrat lambs were nestling up to the victims. They felt your pain. But be sure, if you put Obama into power, he would end the wars....he would curb the abuse on your civil liberties and your privacy.

Just pick Obama the next time that you have the opportunity to "make your voice heard". There's still "Hope" that you can make a "Change".

You can take that to the bank:

The whole thing works like a charm.

And no matter who is elected, and no matter which party is chosen, the end result, that both parties work for, is reached....The size and scope of the welfare/warfare state is increased.

If you're skeptical, and need a visual confirmation, just look at the Federal Budget and Debt. And keep in mind that that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for it:

That's called a "one-way ticket".

Now...the good-nature of many people will kick in here, and they'll think to themselves, "Well, we just need to elect the right people. The wrong people keep getting in."

I hate to break it to them, but we're not dealing with two teams here. It's one team, working towards the same goal of increasing the size and scope of its power.

The moment anyone even thinks of messing with this beautiful structure, they get "the treatment":

Furthermore, there can be no such thing as the right person to wield power. The problem is the power itself.

In my view, the best that a single person can do is to live according to the non-aggression principle, spread the ideas of liberty as far as you can, and for heaven's sake, get out of the Good Cop / Bad Cop scam ... Don't vote!


  1. Replies
    1. You seem kinda slow, yourself, sparky.

  2. Chris, you get it. But, sadly, some passionate, well-meaning libertarians never will.

  3. So sad that the ignorant majority still believe the lies about the government as long it is THEIR "party" that spread it. When the dollar collapses and they are broke, that's when TSHTF.

  4. "In my view, the best that a single person can do is to live according to the non-aggression principle, spread the ideas of liberty as far as you can"

    This accomplishes nothing, I've tried it. Rothbard agreed:

    "To get on to voting, yes I believe that any legislator who votes for a tax or an aggressive law is illicitly participating in a criminal enterprise, but no I don't believe that the citizen voter necessarily does so. There's votes and there's votes. One problem with your view (*the anti-voting libertarian view*) is that, in an important sense, it is not anti-statist enough. There is no real sense that we are all of us, willy-nilly, enmeshed in State coercion. Take George's [George Smith's] phrase, "The institution (the State) taints the individuals who work within it." but dammit we're all working within the monstrous matrix that the State has placed around us. I don't mean to be frivolous or kamikaze but we do all walk or drive on State roads, fly on State-regulated airlines, shop at state-licensed stores, etc. We are not responsible for creating the State; it is there, we are within it, and our task is how to get this damn thing off out back. But I can easily carry your argument one step further: driving on government roads participates in State subsidy, it sanctions the State, etc. Using government mails does the same, etc. The state will not disappear if we ignore it (Spies, Konkin), non-violent civil disobedient is hopeless and has never worked, even unworkable laws must be repealed via political action, etc."

  5. A police state, indeed.

  6. Well done, Chris. Unfortunately, people will balk at you when you state that voting is for chumps and only do the "yeah but still" routine when you give them a few salient points to chew on.

    But, it's true. If we each live by the NAP and preach the NAP and private property rights I think we will continue to move the people's myopic gaze away from the bread and circuses to issues of actual importance.

    Bob and you do a fantastic job with the site and the podcasts. Keep it up.