Cowboy Confessional

“Stipulated that it is illegal to kill your congressman,” Bill began using his typical cynical grin and creepy, sinister tone.  “But is it immoral?”

I keep Bill as a friend because he forces me to think, often in extremely unpleasant ways.  If you ever meet Bill I encourage you to discuss religion, politics or philosophy, but avoid sex.  You simply don’t want to know what is on his mind regarding the last subject.

He was insistent on the question of the morality of murdering members of congress, framing his inquiry in the mechanics of personal privilege.  Bill’s weak suits are law and history, and thus he was exploring as much as pontificating.  In the end we concluded that capping your congress critter was indeed illegal, but in certain circumstance morally justified if not actually an imperative.

(Disclosure:  I am in no way, shape, form or processes advocating killing your congressman, congresswoman, senator or any other office holder.  However, I would not shed a tear if some specific members of congress were suddenly speechless due to being suddenly breathless, and I might even crack open a fresh bottle of Jack Daniels upon the demise of some others).

I must begin this disquieting disquisition by reviewing the subject of slaying.  Homicide, in its strictest definition, is the killing of a hominid, i.e. homo sapiens.  Denuded of the concept of human, a moral creature infused with humane beneficence, hominids are then just a species of animal.  Killing a hominid is mechanically no different than killing a cow except that cows make better hamburger.

Where law and morality untie is that most hominids are also humans.  They imbibe in benign or benevolent behavior, causing harm to nobody in particular.  Thus it is deemed immoral to kill them because they are spiritual kin.  Most species don’t idly kill their own kind because of the obvious Darwinian downside.  Homo sapiens do violate this rule, but on small scales and often with good reason (see below).  Only once in a while, typically under the direction of politicians (see above) is when wholesale homicide is committed.  If it were not for governments, bloodshed would be relatively minimal and we would spend our excess time and wealth killing cattle instead.

(To my vegetarian friends, please note that one must spend a fair amount of time, as I have, around cows to dislike them enough to enjoy continuously eating them)

We recognize three distinct forms of homicide: felonious, justified and meritorious.  Felony homicide is the unwarranted killing of another hominid, and is the stock and trade of street gangs everywhere.  Most governments, police departments, courts and jails are initially constructed to deal with perpetrators of these and equally vile acts.  Executing a prisoner convicted in court of a heinous crime is merely society’s way of outsourcing the work.  After all, lynch mobs and ad hoc burials are sloppy and take away from prime television viewing time (of course, if lynching thugs were televised, you might have the ultimate reality show).

Stipulated then is a moral justification and occasional imperative to homicide, with instigators of incivility being dispatched.  Then killing bad actors by individuals (as opposed to outsourcing the effort to government) falls into the realm of justifiable homicide.  You and your neighbors approve of such killings under well defined circumstances, and have codified these shared beliefs into law.  If someone tries to kill you, you can kill them back.  If they try to kill someone else, as a good neighbor, you can intervene with fatal force (.45 ACP being the preferred means to vacate violent criminals).  There are many other justifiable homicide circumstances, including in most states the prevention of rape.  Thus, it is legal to commit homicide if it is justified, and in a well ordered society, it may be essential – left unchecked, criminals might get elected.

Meritorious homicide is the most interesting mode because it is the most perplexing.  Meritorious homicide is an extension of justifiable homicide – a recognition and appreciation for maintaining civility and public safety by eliminating those who don’t.  But justifiable homicides are in defense against acts by hominids who commit documented crimes.  In cases where individuals lawfully cause civil disorder and endangerment, homicide may be both felonious and meritorious.  By killing such individuals, one can save a vast swath of people from harm, but will by order of law be processed by The People’s crime control outsourcing organization (i.e., jailed, tried and executed).  These are rare instances where someone has a medal pinned on them right before the executioner throws the switch.

Stipulated that the concept of justifiable homicide exists so that any person can maintain their safety and freedom, and protect the safety and freedom of people unable to defend themselves.  Stipulate also that when congress enacts unconstitutional laws that endanger the safety and freedom of The People, the people have the right and possibly the moral imperative to defend themselves.  When we meld in Bill’s observation that it is technically illegal to kill your congress critter, we land squarely at the intersection of felonious and meritorious homicide – that it may be a service to your country and your community to cap a congressman, but it will most likely land you in jail.  You may have a medal pinned to your chest at a most inopportune moment.

This all assumes that the law remains the law.

John Locke, the original libertarian and a man whose influence over the construction of the American Constitution was pervasive, concluded that times arise when the covenant is broken and that rubbing out rubes in the rotunda is perfectly appropriate.  While opining upon the nature of government, Locke lobbed this rhetorical hand grenade at the establishment:

“ … whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”

The “common refuge” is a rifle and a few rounds of ammo.

Bill’s question – if it was immoral to kill your congressman – fits rather nicely with the established law and Locke.  Violence may rightfully be used in self defense, which includes defense against enslavement, as any underground railroad worker would attest.  Should legislators endeavor to stray from the Constitution, and by such straying, take property or liberty from anyone, then removing the congressperson from the gene pool is morally justified.  In the mechanics of revolutions (such as the little, obscure one of 1776) such actions will be considered felonious by the government, but justified and meritorious by everyone else.

In other words, The People and the government disagree, and The People win by default.

Which brings us to Obamacare and my earlier prediction that some congressman, somewhere, will eventually leak.  Ideology aside, when the government dictates what non-destructive activities the people can and cannot do, they reduce The People to slavery under arbitrary power.  No sane person (which excludes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) can argue that Obamacare is not an arbitrary exercise of power, or that it does not deprive people of property and self-determination, and hence reduces some or all of the public to a state of slavery.  No less of a man than Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (and there is no lesser man) clearly stated that the reason for the legislation was to address the comically alleged “mal-distribution of income in America.”  Stated a bit more bluntly, he wants to use force (the IRS, federal prison) to take money from one person and give it to another.  Since the person providing the money (you) has no choice in the matter, no way to opt-out of the process, you have become a slave.  Your labor is not for your own benefit, or for the service to all residents (such as funding a police force) but to the arbitrary and capricious direction of the government.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Baucus have just annihilated 147 years of America being a slave-free nation.

Locke said that given these circumstances The People are “absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”

Bill, your original assumption is incomplete.  Stipulated that the government deems it to be illegal to kill your congressman, but stipulate also that The People are no longer subject to obey that law.  Also stipulate that our ancestors killed red coats, mainly for the fun of it, but also because Locke was right.  Doing so again may be justified and meritorious.

Tags:

This entry was posted by Guy Smith on Sunday, March 28th, 2010 at 2:37 pm and is filed under Constitution, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.