Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I’m At A Loss
I’m a staunch supporter of the death penalty. In fact I’m vigorously opposed to any attempts, with very few exceptions, to make the justice system more lenient in the prosecution, conviction and sentencing of serious violent crimes. And when I say “very few exceptions” I’m referring to the processes that deal with forensics, admission and conviction…not with sentencing.
From what I’ve observed, the watering-down of our justice system is an experiment that was already tried, between the mid ’60s to the early ’70s. The results were so disastrous, so crystal-clear, and ran so contrary to the will of the well-intentioned — so incredibly simple — that further experimentation is unwarranted and unnecessary.
To bottom-line it: More innocent people got killed and we got sick of it. Duh.
One of the most persuasive arguments the anti-death-penalty people use, and it even has a compelling effect on people like me, is that the death penalty is an unjust investment of power into the government. In other words, the taking of human life is a power that a government of free men ought not have.
That makes perfect sense. By itself. But I’m at a loss to explain the following.
There are several countries sprinkled around the globe that measure the extent to which they have become “civilized,” by their readiness, willingness, ability and eagerness to create new regulation. These countries are not known for a careful balance between social good versus individual liberties — the latter of the two, is something that is simply in the way. A ban on drinking, even in the privacy of people’s homes, to curb violence and disorderly conduct? “Something must be done!” A ban on guns, including the forcible confiscation of private property? “It’s for the children!” A requirement to put health-warning bumper stickers on SUVs? “They kill!”
With increasing regularity, I see these countries indulging in risk-mitigation, perhaps up to & beyond a point of diminishing return. They regulate until threat-to-self has been lowered about as much as it practically can be, then they keep regulating. Taking away freedom, offering no benefit in return. Goo-Gooders. Guardian Angel Governments (GAG). Nanny-states.
Let ’em do it. As a yankee, I have no right to impose my will on such an enlightened society that is so eager to steamroll over the individual rights of its citizens.
Which brings me to the thing I don’t understand.
The list of countries that have abolished the death penalty unconditionally, supposedly because government ought-not-have-that-right, has an incredibly high overlap with the nanny-state countries. It seems all the nanny-states have outlawed the death penalty, and all the anti-death-penalty states are nanny-states.
They are not known for curtailing government excesses in too many other areas, any areas at all, besides taking the life of the provably homicidal. In these countries, you have the right to be alive, even if you kill people, and even if you swear that if you make it outside again you’ll kill again. But once you are kept alive, you don’t have the right to do an awful lot with that life. Everything that isn’t confiscated, is pasturized, regulated, subsidized, underwritten. And then a warning label is put on it.
This is a long list. Canada. Spain. France. Germany. Sweden. Norway. Denmark. Belgium. On and on and on.
They all supposedly respect an individual’s right to life more than the USA does — because if you kill somebody, you have an absolute guarantee, you will live. Nevermind that your victim had no such guarantee.
Now, we live in a universe that does have some contradictions — they may not be genuine contradictions, but illusory or not the contradictions are there. But this one is more troubling than most, because the resulting message is truly paradoxical. The government will champion your right to stay alive even if you kill; but if someone else kills you, the government will make sure that person cannot be executed for the crime of killing you. If someone else kills him then that person, too, will be spared execution. You are all protected by a law that outlaws killing, but that law really has no teeth.
And until all of you get killed, you have to stay within the lines. You can’t smoke. When you kill each other you must use knives because you can’t have guns. If you work and earn money, you owe whatever portion of it to the state, that the state says you owe — all of it, if the state has the desire to say so. Logically, that would have to mean whatever you’re allowed to keep, you get to keep because the state decided to let you, not because it’s your “right”.
It’s so bizarre. The state cannot take your whole life but it can take chunks of it, large & small. On a whim, basically. You have an absolute, sacrosanct right to listen to your heartbeat; anything else you do is up for challenge. Pour milk on top of your cake? Swallow watermelon seeds? Read a newspaper while having breakfast with your wife? If 49 say you can and 51 say you can’t, then forget it.
I would call this a coincidence if it was a couple countries. Maybe three or four. But like I said, we’re talking like, I don’t know, something approaching twenty or so here.
Is there a nanny-state that allows its government to regulate reflexively, excessively, redundantly, on a whim, and — for sake of consistency — also allows it to impose the death penalty? With considerable deterioration to the spirit of its Constitution over the years, the United States somewhat qualifies for this. In practice; not in intent. I can’t think of another one.
Is there a state that curtails its government from executing the guilty, and also — for the sake of consistency — restricts its government from doing a lot of other things? I can’t think of one.
This means something. I’m not sure what.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.