Just heard an interesting line on The Mentalist: "...Because killing someone without government permission is wrong."
Digest that for a second.
...without government permission?
I thought murder is murder. Somehow it's "right" if the state does it?
I want said permit.
ReplyDeleteBret, as a statist, you have no choice but to agree that something otherwise wrong is made right if the state or its agents do it. Anarchism has the only consistent moral outlook (if something is immoral, it's immoral no matter who does it).
DeleteI've no doubt your conscience would be clear as long as you were licensed to kill (or steal, kidnap, imprison).
That's actually not how things work, but I don't expect certain people to understand the difference between words like "right/wrong," "legal/illegal," "murder/self defense," etc.
ReplyDeleteThat would take thought.
Sigh. I may regret this but how DO things work? Do tell in this particular case.
ReplyDeleteT.C., Bret can't offer any coherent answer (that would require thought, after all, not regurgitated statist propaganda). When he says that's "not how things work", he's being disingenuous again and you can be sure he'll equivocate when it comes to words like those he mentions.
ReplyDeleteIn basic terms, yes, in a society where there are still some restraints on state power, individuals working on behalf of the state while performing their "duties" may end up facing charges for certain actions that go beyond what is "legal". However, what anarchists and sane people people are talking about is the objective nature of right and wrong. If someone has a right to the income they've earned, but I (or a group of people) feel they should pay to help the less fortunate, I don't have the right to take that person's money without their consent. That would be theft. It makes it no less theft if the state steals the money out of the person's paycheck (again, without that individual's explicit consent) and calls it a tax.
Let's look at murder. Almost every US President in recent memory has been a mass murderer. But because they committed their crimes under cover of war or some military action they ordered, they'll never be prosecuted for it.
Now, here's something that Bret either can't or won't answer. He thinks the current war on drugs is wrong, but what he can't deny is that it is "legal", legal for cops to smash in your door in a "drug raid" and drag you off (kidnap you) to jail for a non-violent act. It is surely wrong and immoral to do that to someone, but by the logic of a statist, the state is allowed to do it. But anarchists say, no, NO ONE is allowed to do that, and that they do it and get away with it just underscores the chaos and violence inherent in statism and that "might makes right" is the governing principle of the state and its apologists.
If I may interject? The line was in the show for humor. A cross between sarcasm, satire, and the truth. A nation at war sanctions the killing of pretty much anyone who gets in the way (with some important restrictions), Obama sanctioned the killing of bin Ladin as well as some pirates from Somalia (a couple years back). And, of course, there are state and federal executions of murderers.
ReplyDeleteWe (mankind) have moved beyond the feudal society where the ruling despot (earl, baron, king, whatever) can order the death of any citizen under his rule (for the most part) without providing any justification. There are exceptions (which many folks, such as SE, ignore in favor of talking about U.S. presidents being mass murderers), of course, in recent history and/or currently living (Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Mao, Kim Jung Il and his predecessor and probably his son, Ghaddafi, Assad, Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, etc).
You saw that episode!
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with the satire but it still made me wonder.
I agree we've evolved quite a bit but if you're likely to view it objectively like SE does then killing is wrong no matter what. Though I'm not sure if all president's were mass murderers.