For every crime there is an equivalent government action which may be regarded as a crime. For example: taxation = extortion, (but not technically theft, since theft is taking while extortion is forcing a person to give up possession under penalty of duress).
Similarly, arrest = kidnapping.
Rent seeking = racketeering.
Inflation = theft.
Death penalty = murder.
Incarceration = false imprisonment.
Compulsory education = brainwashing.
Propaganda = lying on a grand scale.
Body cavity searches = sexual assault.
Surveillance = stalking.
Wire tapping = infringement of privacy.
When the government arrests you for refusing to pay taxes that is kidnapping. When they bust down your door and kill you for refusing to show up for your arraignment that is murder.
"Justice" is a progressive escalation of violence: "pay taxes or we will arrest you," means, "submit to extortion of we will kidnap you." "Show up for your arraignment or we will incarcerate you," means "walk into the court house under psychological duress and submit to being kidnapped or we will kidnap you and falsely imprison you."
"Submit to form of violence A or receive form of violence B."
"Submit to form of violence B or receive form of violence C."
The state has learned through historical experience that it can obtain much more compliance by structuring penalties as a ladder that escalates with noncompliance. This allows it to be more intrusive than it could be if every penalty was, oh say, death.
There is a Chinese proverb about this.
Chen Sheng was an officer serving the Qin Dynasty, famous for their draconian punishments. He was supposed to lead his army to a rendezvous point, but he got delayed by heavy rains and it became clear he was going to arrive late. The way I always hear the story told is this:
Chen turns to his friend Wu Guang and asks “What’s the penalty for being late?”
“Death,” says Wu.
“And what’s the penalty for rebellion?”
“Death,” says Wu.
“Well then…” says Chen Sheng.
And thus began the famous Dazexiang Uprising, which caused thousands of deaths and helped usher in a period of instability and chaos that resulted in the fall of the Qin Dynasty three years later.
Because we know that government violence is just crime by a different name we may begin to define what freedom is: freedom is lack of crime, but this definition depends on a different definition of crime.
Total Real Crime (TRC) = private sector crime (PSC) + equivalent government crimes (EGC).
Freedom is defined as the lowest level of Total Real Crime that a given ethnic group can achieve based on their genetic tendencies. Freedoms is the MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE LEVEL of security against BOTH private crime AND state violence WITHIN the context of a given ethnic group.
So for example one group (like Africans) has a high propensity for violent crime committed by private sector individuals, and so the correct way to achieve freedom is to have a tyrannical monarchy that kills all violent males, since the lowest achievable level of Total Real Crime, (that is private crime + government criminal acts), occurs when the government simply executes all violent males. This is because one execution = one crime, but a violent criminal will commit maybe 10 or 20 violent crimes over the course of his life. Therefore one achieves the lowest level of rights infringement through authoritarian government.
However, with a different ethnic group this technique might be totally inappropriate. Asians have a very low natural private sector crime rate, but a tendency to empower autocratic governments. Shanghai is perfectly safe from crime in the conventional sense, but that is only because all the crime is being committed by the communist government of China. For such ethnic groups freedom may be more important thing and not suppressing crime.
So the question is sometimes asked: "what is the most free society?" And the answer is "well it depends on the race." In Africa a monarchy will work well, while in China an anarcho capitalist system might work better. AnCap systems can work everywhere the natural crime rate of the population is low. Similarly, democracies work only in isolation, but fail when they begin importing new voters. This is also true of all free societies. Free societies will create low levels of government rights infringement, and this will create an incentive for criminal populations to immigrate to the free nations. Thus, if one has a low level of police enforcement one must have a high level of immigration enforcement, conversely, if one allows the immigration of anyone at all, one must have an extraordinarily high level of police enforcement. However, this high level infringes the rights of the low crime natives, who otherwise would be able to enjoy a greater level of freedom. Immigration of high crime populations is thus a direct violation of the rights of low crime populations, since it necessitates the creation of a police state against an otherwise free people.
This means that by the standards of more free/lower crime ethnic groups, freedom is not actually possible for high crime ethnic groups, at least, not any freedom the low crime group would recognize.
If you import a criminal population it is the same as if the government had committed the crimes of that population itself. If the government imports a Pakistani rapist to Rotterdam the government has committed rape just as surely as if a police officer performed the act. What the sovereign allows the sovereign commands. There are "no go" areas in Great Britain precisely because the British government enforces the law as if it is still an ethnically White nation. America has far less crime — and therefore more freedom — because of its massive private prison industry, which locks up 2 million criminals and prevents its immigration policy from destroying it utterly.
Despite the mad ravings of deluded and ignorant liberals the "prison industrial complex" is the only thing saving America, and it only exists because one feature of tyrannical corruption (rent-seeking by the private prison industry) is checking another (oligarchical forced multicultural immigration of high crime populations).
We may conceive of a graph with two axes. On the X axis we plot private sector crime, while on the Y axis government criminal acts. "Freedom" is a curved line running down this graph where there are multiple production possibility frontiers. On one extreme is the freedom of the Wild West, where there is no government but you can shoot a trespasser dead if he is stealing your cattle. On the other extreme is a authoritarian monarchy with the death penalty for violent crimes, very low taxes, and mostly free speech. Anarcho tyranny is not a form of freedom, nor is totalitarian dictatorship, as they both fall outside the curve of different forms of freedom an ethnic group can achieve. The graph will be different for each race based on its natural predisposition to crime: more violent races will justify more intrusive forms of government while less violent races enable less intrusive governments. Freedom is local.
Freedom for one is tyranny for the other. If you enforce the law at the level appropriate for a low crime group, against a more violent group, then you have anarchy, since you are letting the low crime group be victimized by the high crime groups. If you enforce the law against the low crime group at the level of enforcement appropriate for the high crime group then you have tyranny, since you are excessively enforcing against the low crime group. If you do both you have anarcho tyranny.
The above graph shows anarcho tyranny relative to Africans vs. Caucasians. An Asian immigrant will endure a lower level of tyranny under Caucasian rule, but a higher level of crime. The crime can be mitigated by living in good neighborhoods, and thus we see why someone who is Asian might prefer to live in a White society. Furthermore, the level of state infringement is always likely to be higher in non-black societies than the level of private crime, since governments have historically done most of the killing. More violent populations will seek to escape their own dysfunction by immigrating to lower crime White societies.
The point is that freedom is a production possibility frontier, that this frontier differs by ethnic group, that there are multiple forms of government that can lie along this frontier, and that different forms of government will be appropriate to different groups based on their disposition towards crime. The above graphs are a rough representation of the principle. A more nuanced set of graphs would break things down by ethnic group: Irish vs. Germans vs. French, vs. Turks, vs. Croatians etc., etc. Furthermore, some forms of government will not be possible with high crime ethnic groups, (like democracy or anarcho capitalism). Political genetics also plays a part; a race of "control freaks" cannot have a government of low violence.