An eye for an eye

[ShyGuy68]

I just read this today, and was shocked about how the laws are in some muslim countries! It makes me happy to live in a country that don't have those strict laws!


ShyGuy

Man's Eye Cut Out As Punishment

Filed at 11:47 a.m. EDT


By The Associated Press
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Sobbing and expressing regret for his actions, an Egyptian man had his left eye surgically removed in the first eye-for-an-eye punishment in Saudi Arabia in over 40 years, a newspaper reported Monday.

Abdel Moati Abdel Rahman Mohammed, 37, an Egyptian, was convicted of disfiguring a compatriot by throwing acid on his face. He had his left eye removed last week in a hospital in the western city of Medina.

The punishment was carried out despite offers to pay $213,000 to the victim, Shihata Ajami Mahmoud, the daily Okaz said.

Mohammed threw acid on Mahmoud's face following an argument over money in 1996. In addition to the removal of his eye, he was fined $68,800 and ordered to serve an undisclosed prison term, the paper reported.

It said Mahmoud, 35, has undergone more than 30 reconstructive operations. His face remains disfigured and he continues to suffer emotionally from the scars.

Mohammed sobbed before the punishment was carried out and acknowledged his crime. ``I did wrong to myself and to the victim and I deserve the punishment,'' he said.

Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islamic law calls for cutting off the hands and feet of thieves. Murderers, rapists, drug traffickers and armed robbers are beheaded. In some cases, victims can either demand retributive punishment or accept monetary compensation.

 

[ManOSafety]

I think the scary thing

about that news story isn't the law that was broken, bur rather the punishment for the crime. Disfiguring somebody with acid is certainly deserving of something.

However, if we want to discuss strict laws, I recall the earlier post about the unusual laws still on the books in many states in the U.S. that make oral and anal sex between consenting adults, even married ones, and in the privacy of their own homes illegal. Now those are some strict laws that certainly need to be taken off the books.

 

[Bonnie Wee Lassie]

Ouch!

 

[Dreamer1]

I agree with you ShyGuy but throwing acid in someone's face is a cold, heartless thing to do to someone. I imagine it was fairly well thought out unless acid sits around in Middle Eastern countries just waiting to be thrown. A very long prison term coupled with harsh financial penalties to attempt to compensate the victim would be more in line.

 

[CreamyLady]

Not in Islamic law. The faithful are in little doubt as to what will happen to them, and, in the current climate, courts are not inclined to leniency.

It is very harsh by our standards, though.

 

[Treat]

I was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from January 1995 until the end of June 1996. I can agree that the laws of Muslim nations are a bit extreme, but you have to look at it all. Saudia Arabia has less that 1% crime rate a year. HAving theses types of laws are what prevents a lot of idiots from doing things. And believe me, even if you are american, you had better abide by them as well.

A female Airforce member attatched to the operation I was on, was still in prison when her squadron left after three months for messing with a single Saudi armed forces member. The Matawa (religeous police) saw them walking hand in hand down the street and stopped them. If you are with a woman, you are supposed to be able to prove that the two of you are married to be holding hands. And on the other side, the lady is supposed to walk be hind the man and all male members of the family.

Check out a few laws:

Adultery is punishable by death, stoning or pushed to your death from a cliff. Though, the stoning has taken on a more human sense according to them (the saudis) A concrete slab is dropped on you. As well as the dropped to your death, you are taken up in a helicopter and pushed out until you are hung dead bye the runners.

The female members of the family not only walk behind the males, but also ride in the back seat of the car. They are not permitted to ride in the front.

Showing the bottoms of your feet to another is considered an insult.

Theft or shoplifting is punishable by cutting the arm, from the elbow on down of the right arm off. The right is used because your left is used to wipe your ass and other things. You do not touch any food, person, or thing in public with your left. Thus the dismembering of the right makes you a social outcast.

There is a place in Riyadh called "Chop Chop Square", where the public executions take place, we were not permitted to go there. But I know a few who did sneak down and saw a few people beheaded on a few occassions while stationed there.

 

[Dreamer1]

Close friends of mine are living in Saudi right now and we have discussed this very subject. Luckily, they aren't big lawbreakers!

 

[Cocoa]

It's very interesting how different we in the west are from the middle east. I think part of the reason the middle east hasn't caught up with our more "enlightened" modern ideas of justice is simply because such harsh punishment is an excellent deterrent against crime. I don't think it's hard to argue that our crime rates would be much lower with such penalties. This is not to say I'm in favor of it, but it has its advantages.

The middle east by and large hasn't adopted the relatively western notion of "human rights" and certainly has never come to regard the concept of "rehabilitation" to be a central one in the treatment of criminals as the west has for the past couple of centuries (after all, our prisons are officially termed "correctional facilities" and our beaurocracies of justice "depts. of corrections".

Islamic law is based on the laws dictated in the Koran, not abstract ideas of "human rights" and as such, the idea of changing their system of justice is untenable, as it would be breaking a command of Allah. It's analagous to a system we might have if we were to go back and base all of our laws on the old testament.

An eye for an eye indeed.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Treat
Saudia Arabia has less that 1% crime rate a year. HAving theses types of laws are what prevents a lot of idiots from doing things.

It's not having these type laws (or any type laws) that prevent a lot of idiots from committing crimes; it is conscientious enforcement.

Were we to have conscientious enforcement of the laws in the United States of America, our crime rate would be lower than it is. Nothing deters criminals like swift and sure justice.

As for the example cited, I feel no sympathy for the perp at all. My only question is why surgically? Why not just poke him in the eye with a sharp stick? Show him the same courtesy and mercy he showed his victim.

One of my long time desires for fair and just punishment under American laws, for example, in a capital murder case is that the criminal should die in the same manner as his victim. If the murderer burns his victim to death, burn him at the stake, wide awake, no anesthesia, no mercy. Do it publicly and take the school kids to watch as an incentive.

The problem with Islamic Law is that it's religion based and thus irrational. Crimes are declared on religious superstitious prohibitions, not defined by rational objective thought processes. America suffers from some of the same types of laws but fortunately to a far lesser extent. And fortunately, we have so many laws that most of these obscure invasion of privacy laws are not enforced nor enforceable.

As I see it we have two major problems in our Justice System.

First, DA's are politically motivated rather than justice oriented. They tend to prosecute cases that gain them political success more ardently than do the ordinary criminal cases.

Second, we have so many laws that it would take almost every other citizen being a prosecuting attorney to enforce all the idiotic laws we do have. The solution is to remove from the law books any law that cannot be objectively defined as a crime, a task which politicians will NEVER undertake because it would virtually destroy their political power over free men in a free society.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
-- Ayn Rand

Another problem I perceive is the irrational idea that each little fiefdom, i. e., state, city, locale, should have its own set of laws independent of every other government entity however irrational they may be. I attribute this to the local political hack, be it the mayor, governor, city council, or whatever, seeing itself as lord and master over the serfs who serve under his rule, a carryover from the Dark Ages.

A hundred years ago, with widely dispersed population centers and travel being very slow, this system made sense to a degree, at least from the enforcement perspective.

A crime is a crime independent of geographic location. In a society as mobile as today's, it makes no sense whatsoever, even from the enforcement perspective. A criminal can be transported across the country in a day to face justice.

As another example, why must one state institute extradition proceedings just to have a suspected murderer returned to the venue of the crime for trial? How blatantly stupid is that and it just gets worse as the crime becomes less severe! This is the United States, isn't it? Maybe I don't understand what United means; like Clinton isn't sure what the definition of is is!

 

[April]

The solution is to remove from the law books any law that cannot be objectively defined as a crime, a task which politicians will NEVER undertake because it would virtually destroy their political power over free men in a free society, a carryover from the Dark Ages.

I totally agree with you on this point. This entire country needs to revamp their statutes.

And I would love to see the clowns in Congress stop making new laws constantly. We need new laws to cover tech. advances. There's a point where there are too many laws, and I think we've gone past that.

 

[Xander]

As brutal as this might sound, islamic countries do have a certain grasp on how to enforce punishment.
Sometimes it seems to me, to be a whole lot better, than the rehabilitation idea.
Don't even get me started on the Dansih "idea" of punishment. It's a joke.
Let's face it. How many people do actually come out of jail, being better more lawbidding citizens than they were when they went in?? Close to none.
To have a consequence involving disfígurement, death or something equally brutal, for violent crimes, rape, murder, childmolesting or whatever. Seem to work.
If you're stupid enough to do a crime like that, you should be man/woman enough to pay the consequences.
Think about it. If someone forced him/herself on your child, mamma, best friend. Molesting, raping murdering, In no particular order. Would you really want them on a free vacation on the taxpayers money?? Only to be let out into sociaty after 5 years?
I don't think so.
A swift brutal punishment would set an example and keep other from it. Hell who many guys do you know who would go out and rape an innocent girl, if they knew the punishment would be castration. Not many I think.

Secondly, it would save a whole lot of money. Instead of locking people up for 16 years, at the expense of millions. It would be over ina matter of a week, only to the expense of a promilla, in comparison.

Just my oppinion.

 

[Never]

One of my long time desires for fair and just punishment under American laws, for example, in a capital murder case is that the criminal should die in the same manner as his victim.
And if someone rapes another he should be locked away with Bubba, the big black guy.
I'm not going to go into how your plan would suddenly increase the number of blind young black men walking around while it would hardly touch upper and middleclass white American.
I got other fish to fry.

The reason political power is broken up into 'fiefdoms' is so the people in each are can have control of what happens around them and no one person will have too much power.

There is no reason for the nation to vote whether the surplus in my local government should be spent on building a municipal pool or not. A great deal of this country constitutes an outside interest to my city-county-state. I remember when I lived in Oregon and the government was considering resending the protected status of a large area of forest. Three or four months before the vote commercials began pouring in the majority of them, railing against the state council for once again choosing owls over lumberjacks and their families.
The Oregonian did some digging and it turned out that the majority of the commercials were being paid for by developers, the majority of these developers were based in California and that if they were allowed to clear the forest only about 30% of their profit would stay instate.
Contrary to popular belief state lines were not drawn haphazardly by a group of politicians and even those have become something more. Different states have different philosophies and ideas on how to spend money. Can you imagine New York City in the heart of Alabama? Or Huston in northern Maine?

You bring up a good point about extraditing. Police Departments all want to be the one who gets to lock up the really nasty criminals, another feather in their cap. It also reminds me of a story I heard of a man who was wanted for murder in Texas and Oregon but caught in Oregon. It seems the local authorities wouldn't release him because, most likely, he would have received the death penalty in Texas. The press got into the act and it became a 'big deal' with protesters and picketing on both sides. In Texas a family grieved and in Oregon people talked about human rights and the man sat in a jail cell for months on end as things dragged out.

I'm still wondering if this was a good thing or a bad thing. The reason being that this dragged on for so long because people were passionate about what was happening. It wasn't about 'politiks' but philosophies. I read the arguments on this board and sometimes wonder at all if we could function as 'kingdom.' The political system is what it is today because ten thousand people want things one way and six thousand want them the opposite way and politicians have to figure out a way to serve the majority without denying the minority.

Democracy, by its very nature, could never give birth to a unified or cohesive political system. Socrates once talked about the 'Tyranny of the People' and pictured a government which ran around like a chicken with its head cut off because there were no guiding principles or powers; just a mass of people, each with their own ideas about the way things 'ought to be.'

Um.
I ran out of things to say.
Boy. Do I feel stupid.

Um.
Spoon?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can't argue against me because not even I know what my point is.

 

[Unclebill]

Some Good Points!

I will not extend the analogy beyond the case of capital murder. Beyond that situation, the correlation becomes ridiculous; the idea of robbing a robber? Preposterous.

Put him in prison for a few years. Reinstate the earlier principle of the 'three-time loser'; commit three crimes, automatic life sentence.

As to government surplus, you have accepted the fallacious notion that government should be involved in the economy. Government is an instrument of force. Economics in a free society is a venue of voluntary dealings between men who exchange items of value among themselves.

Mixing the two negates the idea of a free economy. Government produces nothing thus it does not benefit an economy. Government is a liability on an economy. Consequently, the only benefit a government can produce is to minimize its impact on an economy. This is achieved by keeping the cost of government to a minimum, thus keeping a government limited in size to the minimum necessary.

The only LEGITIMATE function of a government in a free society is to protect the rights of its citizens. To achieve this, it need provide three things:

1. Police to protect the citizenry from criminals within the society.

2. Military to protect the citizenry from foreign aggressors.

3. Courts to try and punish criminals and to settle legitimate disputes among free men in the society.

When government enters into a business agreement as a partner, it compromises the objectivity mandatory to its legitimacy. If a government has a surplus, that surplus should legitimately only be applied to future expenses of operating the government.

Government also surrenders its legitimacy when it relegates itself to the role of criminal as it does when it forcibly confiscates property legitimately obtained by its citizens.

As to the argument regarding the death penalty, most of those who object do so on religious grounds. The remainder are merely crackpots who lack a rational understanding of or merely wish to negate the concept of justice.

For those who use religious grounds, most if not are are some version of christianity whose beliefs are based on the bible, most of which is the old testament. They use the commandment stating "Thou shalt not kill" as their grounds.

However, they are ignorant for the most part of the translations which altered some words changing the meaning of the passage. Taking it from the Jewish Torah (sp?), the same commandment is "Thou shalt not murder". Killing a murderer is not murder, it is justice. And it prevents his repeating his crime against another innocent.

Granted with today's highly politicized criminal (in)justice system there is too much emphasis on getting a conviction rather than catching and punishing the criminal. So in my estimation, the current system needs serious overhaul before application of the death penalty is thoroughly legitimized.

As for democracy, that is not a good form of government; it amounts to a shoddy attempt to legitimize the concept of mob rule or the 'might makes right' concept. The democratic republic form of government has not done much better by us either. We merely have a smaller mob influenced by those with sufficient money or blackmail goods.

Had our Founding Fathers had the benefit of a stronger philosophical definition of government, they could have put in place specific prohibitions which could have prevented the wildly out of control politicians we have today who are seemingly out to destroy individual freedoms with a vengeance.

 

[Slut_boy]

I like the ideas that have come from this thread. But I do (respectfully) disagree with those of who that are proponents of capital punishment. My reasons are closely related to Unclebill's role that government ought to play in society. Bill, if I may add to what you have said on government's function - I think that government (certainly in legitimate democracies) stands in a relationship of agency to it's electorate. It represents the wishes of the people and not the other way around.

Now if that is the case - that the government is the people's agent - then how can a state that condems the mutilataion of people in turn condone the mutilation of the mutilator. Either it is acceptable to mutilate or else it isn't. If it isn't then the mutilator must be punished. But to then punish the offender with the same conduct that you have just condemmed is, to my mind, outrageous.

 

[Unclebill]

Let's take your supposition for a moment, Slut_boy, that the government is the agent of the electorate.

First question is which portion of the electorate? If it does not represent all then it is discriminatory and thus is misrepresenting some while representing others.

Second, if it is to represent some, is it to represent the majority? That is to presume that the majority is right which is an irrational presumption. How many people believed the world to be flat? At one time, virtually all making them a majority and they punished many who believed otherwise. Right was subverted so the argument that it should represent the majority is merely to subscribe to the "might makes right" premise, i. e., mob rule.

Ask Galileo about his reward for stating the the Earth was not the center of the universe. His reward for scientific discovery was suppression by the ruling authority of the time, the church. His statement of truth was declared heresy.

So, whose wishes are to be enforced as law by the government acting as their agent? Whose beliefs are more important or are correct? Those in the majority? Those in the minority? Once you accept the fallacy of goverment being the agent of the electorate, you surrender to the idea of mob rule and that is essentially what we have in the US today.

If you have enough money or enough blackmail capital, you can contribute or coerce politicians to passing laws favoring you or hindering your competitor and gain the upper hand. This is the chaos brought about by government meddling into things where it has no legitimate province. A prime example is the Tobacco Industry settlement (euphemism for extortion) gained by the government threatening a lawsuit against a legitimate business. Fortunately, we have at least one court with some sanity and principle (he said hopefully) in Ohio which dismissed out of hand a similar lawsuit against the firearms manufacturers. My only question, where were these judges on the tobacco ripoff?

As an example, if we should find a majority of people who believe that human sacrifice is a valid and legitimate practice, should that then become law enforced by the government?

Explain to me how you can have the government allow some of the electorate to determine the rights of others in the electorate. How can there exist equality when some people can vote away the rights of others? The only context in which the question of equaltiy is rational is in the context of freedom of choice and non-coercive action.

The United States outlawed slavery last century but is practicing it today. It's not called slavery of course. That isn't politically correct but government coercion in virtually every endeavor pursued by honest men in a free(?) society is exactly that. The government has authority (and practices is vigorously) to confiscate the property of honest men and to redistribute it to whomever is deemed an appropriate beneficiary, but that's not slavery (at least in PC speak); it's taxation.

Someone here on another thread made the statement that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. I never quite understood what that was supposed to mean. Freedom entails concurrent responsibility. Freedom to pursue your goals unhampered by coercion is your right and its corollary is the responsibility for your success or failure. There is no right to have others provide your success under the heavy hand of authority.

No other person is obligated to provide for your sustenance or maintenance except in the role of parent/child when the parent is responsible for another's life, health and well-being. But parenthood is a voluntary undertaking; it is not forced upon you thus this responsibility for another is also voluntary.

As far as the mutilation thing, I don't endorse it but in a case such as this, it doesn't in the least offend my sense of justice. As to your objection to capital punishment, why would you want to retain living in society one who has no respect for or valuation of human life? Someone who murders is a predatory animal, not a human being in my judgement.

If a natural predator kills a human being, almost always the response is to exterminate that particular animal to preclude further killing of humans. The predator is merely living to its nature, hunting or self-defense. But the response is to kill it and eliminate the potential hazard for other humans. Why do you desire less when a human kills another human. The human murderer knows that the act of murder is wrong but chooses to do it anyway while the predatory animal is merely obeying its instincts, i. e., its mechanism of survival.

Why be willing exterminate one that does not have the conscious ability to determine right from wrong but be unwilling to do likewise for the one who does possess that capacity?

 

[Slut_boy]

Bill, it seems to me that your reply is really one properly dealt with in two parts: first the issue of a democratic government representing the people as their 'agent'; and second, the issue of capital punishment.

Please accept for now a response to the first point only. You ask a very important question in who it is (vis-a-vis the electorate) that a government actually represents. You then go on to provide us with an incredibly logical and well thought out critism of classical utilitarianism. I need time to formulate a decent reply to you, but I am almost certain that my answer will be found somewhere in the often unnoticed distinctions drawn between three very different interpretations of democracy.

The first is the "by-the-people" understanding. Here the criterion for whether a political arrangement is democratic is whether the institutions and procedures of government express the actual will of those governed. The second is the "for-the-people" understanding which enquires into whether or not the rulers are in fact acting effectively in the interests of the people. The third is the "of-the-people" understanding which would demand that government submit or make itself available to the wishes of those who elect it.

Now a combination of all three (and I can hear you already, Bill, telling me that no government meets the combined ideology) would render, in principle, the democratically elected power a mere agent or tool in the hands of those who placed them in power. In the ideal, an arrangement of 'agency' is, I suppose, a contract between the ruler and the ruled. Early political thinkers and architects of democratic thought like the medieval crowd (Locke, Hobbes, and Aquinas) did in fact refer to the agency relationship as one arising from a "social contract". Problem is, as I am sure you will point out, that the theory runs along a seperate parallel to the practice. And we all know that parallel lines can never meet.

I am not sure that the agency point is adequtely addressed. Perhaps I'll try to clarify if anyone has a query.



[Edited by Slut_boy on 08-18-2000 at 03:39 AM]

 

[Slut_boy]

Oh shit, I forgot something:

What makes you say, Bill, that an "electorate" is capable of division. In my understanding, an electorate is a collective noun representing majoritarianism. Like all collective nouns, it is a singular and not plural concept. For this reason, I am not sure it can be further broken down into smaller compartments.

It either did or did note vote a legimate government into power. In that way it is a bit like being pregnant - one either is or else one isn't, but it can't be feasible for part to be and part not to be.

Or is that a weak attempt to gain some ground lost *laughs*

 

[Unclebill]

As to the capital punishment issue, it's a minor point compared to the greater concept of a proper and legitimate government.

First, the government conceived and established by the founders of the United States of America was a first in mankind's recorded history. It was the first and is the only government that did NOT perceive of government as a ruling body but as the body entrusted with guarding the individual's freedom, protecting the individual's rights and protecting rather than ruling and dominating the individual.

It was never perceived by the founders as a function of government to provide financial sustenance, housing, food or other goods and services to its citizens. That was the responsibility of the individual citizen. Charity was never a function of government either. That belongs properly with churches and other charitable organizations.

Likewise, being a citizen did not require the surrender of your rights. The only thing close to that was that the government was empowered to act as your agent in matters of criminal action against you except in the case of immediate self-defense. If you were robbed, the government acted as your agent to investigate the crime, identify and try the perpetrator and to punish him. If you had the means to defend yourself and prevent the crime, you were not prohibited from doing so. In the latter case, the government would act as the agent to prosecute the perpetrator for an attempted crime rather than a successfully completed one and punish accordingly.

It was understood that the victim had nothing to gain by fending off, injuring or killing an assailant except to protect his life and property, thus the victim was not persecuted by government authority. Unfortunately, someone needs to explain this facet of reality to Slick Willie Clinton in terms he can understand. But then, if you don't know what the meaning of is is, perhaps that is a genuine waste of time and energy.

All of the forms of government you describe are counter to that philosophical approach and indeed the philosophical position which in fact I support. In the Declaration of Independence, the founders stated unequivocally:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

This clearly and definitively indicates that government is NOT the source of your (the individual's) rights. Rather that rights are innate to the nature of the being, i. e., man and the term is properly applicable ONLY to the individual, NOT to the collective. Any 'rights' derived from being part of a collective are not legitimately termed 'rights' but rather appropriately as privileges or benefits. Right is a term that applies to every human, not to a select segment of humanity although listening to today's politicians it is painfully evident that they do not support this facet of reality.

Thus, since the electorate is composed of individual men, all of whom will NEVER come to total agreement on even a single point, to have a government enforce the will of the majority (the mob with the most muscle [votes]) is to then have that government subvert the rights of those men in the minority. Since the province of government is to secure (protect) these rights, this then has government relegated to the role of criminal inflicting the wishes of some on others by coercion, figuratively (or perhaps even literally) at the point of a gun (see Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.).

So when I speak of a 'Legitimate Government' I speak of a government constrained by the concepts described above.

Defined in the simplest possible terms, a criminal act is the initiation of the use of force. As an example, should I attempt to assault you and you turn out to be a martial arts master, then I get my ass kicked. Since I initiated the forceful action, I am the criminal. You on the other hand were the victim even though you prevailed in the physical altercation. In this scenario, it is I who should be punished by the government for my behavior. No government action should be initiated against you whatsoever.

Government's only legitimate service is the use of force. The only thing keeping the government legitimate in its action then is that it use force only in retaliation and then only against those who initiated the use of force at the outset.

 

[Slut_boy]

Bill,

I have had time to read and consider your reply to my post. You disagree with my submission that government stands in a position of agency vis-a-vis the electorate (evident from my three definitions of democracy) and then you go on to provide a quotation from the US Declaration of Independence. It is the philosophical approach outlined in the Declaration that you say you support instead of my philosophical approach. But, I don't think that the philosophy of the Declaration differs at all to that of my understanding - emboddied in the relationship of "agency".

Let me show you what I mean. From your quotation contained in the Declaration, the final sentence reads to the effect that: "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." By implication the government gets authority to act from it's electorate, and the power contained in this authority needs the consent of the electorate in order to be legitimate.

Now, let me give you the legal definition of 'agency'. It is "a contract in which one party (the agent or government if you will) is authorized to perform certain acts on behalf of another (principal or electorate) in accordance with the express authority contained in a mandate." The point here is that an agent derives it's just powers from the consent of the principal and it may not exceed the authority given by the principal if performance of the mandate is to be legitimate.

It is a little uncanny how close the text book definition of "agency" is to the wording of the US Declaration of Independence stipulating the governments relationship to those it governs. Do you see what I am getting at here, and why it is that I say we are closer to each other in thought than perhaps we realize? Even your code points to a relationship of agency (even if only in the theory).

[Edited by Slut_boy on 08-21-2000 at 05:52 AM]

 

[Unclebill]

Let’s define our differences...

I do not disagree with your specification that government is the agent of the electorate at large nor with your definition of agent. I even accept your premise that the Declaration of Independence alludes to that relationship.

Where I disagree is in the definition of actions of the agent that may be legitimized and still remain rationally consistent. It is contradictory and thus irrational for an agent in my employ to be able to act with impunity in my place when my taking the same action is criminal, i. e., initiation of force.

Even in the portion of my quote which you repeated, note it specifies just powers of government and that is, I believe, the concept on which our opinions diverge. You seem to be advocating the position that any action of government is legitimate (so long as it is the majority will) and therefore allowable under the just powers criterion. My argument is based on the rational deduction that politicians via legislation have seized for themselves far too many unjust powers and it is their irrational presumptions and fundamentally criminal behaviors against which I rail.

I vehemently disagree that every action of government may be legitimized. As I stated above, the ONLY legitimate action of government is the use of force in a retaliatory capacity; and the initiation of the use of force is by definition a criminal action.

In order for a government's powers to be just, they must be equally applicable to every citizen. When government action is taken against one citizen in favor of another when no crime has been committed, then the government has ceased to provide equal protection under the law. When the government acts as the agent of one citizen against another law-abiding citizen, the rule of law no longer applies equally to both individual citizens. The government has now assumed the role of criminal by initiating the use of force and thus has surrendered its legitimacy.

For government to provide financial or any other assistance requiring financial means to provide it, the only source of financing available is that obtained either through voluntary contribution or forcible means. Since government uses the passage of legislation (usually taxation or tariffs) as its means of raising money and uses courts and police to enforce those laws, the course it employs is the latter, i. e., extortion or robbery. How else can you reasonably and rationally define the seizure of private property which is legitimately acquired?

Thus, in pursuit of these endeavors, the government now acts in the manner prohibited by laws prescribing punishment for those actions when taken by an individual (the smallest definable unit of the electorate), i. e., a criminal.

What I would like to know is how you can legitimize perpetrating by the mob what is explicitly prohibited to the individual? How can an action that is a crime if I take it become a legitimate action when I have my agent take it? What is the justification for making the agent superior to the rule of law?

And another point on which we seem to have some variance of perception regards the relationship of the individual to the electorate, that collective body. As a member of that collective body, does the individual, in your judgement, lose his right as an individual? Does he then become merely another herd animal to be prepared for the slaughter? Does his life become the property of the collective? If so, who then retains the right to make the decisions regarding who is to be sacrificed and when?

Is this power then relegated to government? But who is the government? Is it not merely certain individuals picked more or less randomly and haphazardly to represent those not so selected? If that is the case, then why are they ordained with the power of life and death over those whom they are supposed to represent? And since government under the philosophy I have outlined is the protector of man's rights, this power of life and death over non-criminal citizens has relegated the government to the equivalent of god. How can one's protector be one who holds the power of life or death? This is the power of a god or a tyrant, not a protector!

 

[Skitten]

Yes as bad as it seems there are not as many crimes in theese countries as there are in here in the US. There should be stiffer penalties here for the murders and the sexual assaults. I know if they had stiffer penalties maybe there wouldn't be so many innocent children being hurt by the damn petafiles and such.

So maybe theese countries know more than we do in a lot of cases we worry more about the person who did it than the victims rights. When do they get to be heard and they never are and most of the time they get out because of over populated prisons.

And the prison system doesn't work they get weight rooms and cable tv. The prisons in other countries are just that prisions. A 10x10 space concrete floors some with beds some without. That way you don't want to go back there.

We have people in the US committing small crimes so they can be off the streets and get free room and board. They don't think it is that bad. If our prisons were more like theese other ones and the punishment was harsher maybe there wouldn't be so many crimes here.

 

[Unclebill]

Got to agree, SK

You're point is very perceptive and well put. As long as we run prisons like a resort, there's no real incentive to not go back.

If we return to the prison atmosphere of the 40's and 50's, a lot of the thugs who visit there would have a lot more incentive to not return. I remember seeing chain gangs when I was a kid. We all knew what they were and why they were there. And for most of us, it was a great object lesson.

Now the ACLU cries cruel and unusual punishment if a prisioner has to clean his own cell.

What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? - A good start!

 

[Slut_boy]

Bill, I think that we need to get clarity on something. It is very important to distinguish betwwen the 'government' and the 'state'. I am not sure that you are making the distinction, but it is necessary to make. Many of the powers that you list and accredit to government are in fact powers exercized by the state. Were it not for that distinction then I would agree with you.

But, I can't agree because the distinction is too fundamental. The state has three organs - the executive (the policing units), the legislature (the law maker), and the judiciary (the courts). That is the state. Government is something different. The two are absolutely independent in theory. If that were not the case then everytime an election sees a new government in power, the entire civil service would have to be replaced. But because the state owes no allegiance to the government (in the sense that it is not politicized), this does not have to happen. That is part of the reason that even politicians have to obey the law of the state in which they live.

If you accept that argument, then you must also accept that the state is not an agent of the electorate, government is. If the state is not the agent, then it may still be acting legitimately even when it uses force, or does whatever else it is that an individual may not do.

 

[Unclebill]

Well, I must disagree! (Imagine that)

How can you distinguish between the government and the state? While they are different parts of the same entity, they are in the practical sense inseparable.

Your idea presented merely differentiates between the elected representatives and the employees (bureaucracy) attendant thereunto. The goverment or the state (synonymous) is the entity of authority. Of necessity, it consists of more than the elected representatives but the people in these positions are all part of the same authoritarian entity.

As an example, police officers are hired to act as agents of the government and in that capacity they are entrusted with specific authority necessary to enforce laws as created by the legislative authority, the elected representatives. Being in the position of police officer carries with it no right that is greater or lesser than any other individual in the society. His position of employment bestows upon him an authority which is specific in scope and when he ceases that employment, his authority ceases simultaneously.

In fact, in certain cases, e. g., the military, certain aspects of you right to freedom of expression are forfeit. You may not participate in certain public activities in uniform as that behavior may be interpreted as endorsement by the military. Likewise, while identifying yourself as a member of the military, you may not voice or advocate any political policies since you are subject to the orders of a civilian (elected) commander-in-chief.

Because the supporting structure, e. g., police, court clerks, military, etc., are employed vice elected, there is no reasonable grounds for replacing them wholesale as the result of an election. It is the elected officials who are replaced, not the supporting structure. It is analogous to renting a building. When an old tenant moves out, the building is not razed and reconstructed for a new tenant.

And rarely, if ever, are all of the elected officials replaced at one election (which is our major problem, the useless bastards are hardly ever replaced).

In the United States (at the Federal level), Senators are elected at two year intervals for a six-year term; ergo, they CANNOT be replaced wholesale.

However, to summarize, those you identify as the state rather than the government, are in reality part of the same authoritarian entity so long as their employment is maintained. Their actions are constrained by the same laws as are you and I except when they must take certain specific actions in order to do their job. For example, as a private citizen, I am not authorized to enforce a court order to return property to its rightful owner. That authority is specifically delegated to an officer of the court in the employ of the state (or government).

 

[Slut_boy]

Bill,

You know that I have immense respect for your opinion. You also know that I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate with you. But, I think that our differences of opinion here are probably defined on one major point only: the previous issue of "agency" I think is too intimately intwined in the seperation of powers and function to be an issue on it's own. So the true difference of opinion then would seem to be on 'whether or not the state is indeed synonomous with government, or vice versa (as you contend) or whether the two are independent entities that ought not to be confused (as I believe)'.

After reading your post, I must concede that there are times, in practise anyway, when the distinction becomes smudged. But, do you concede that in theory the seperation is crucial to any understanding (in theory) and operation (in practise) of a true democracy. For this reason I will also concede that in 'one party' states there is no distinction between state and government - but then one party states aren't true democracies.

The reason that states (like the US, and indeed my home state) have constitutions is to protect citizens from an abuse of power by the government. Who does the citizen then have recourse to when the government exceeds it's authority - the answer is the constitution as enforced by an independent judiciary, which is as you know an organ of the state. If the state and the government were indeed synonomous, then how could one be rendered subordinate to the other. That is another reason why the government can't simply introduce laws willy-nilly. If they are unconstitutional then they will get struck down by the judiciary. The judiciary, as an organ of state is not and can not (in my view) be regarded as synonomous with the government.

The only time that this wonderful theory doesn't work in reality, I think, is when government officials act corruptly or bribe state officials. But the unlawful conduct of some individuals can't topple the pillars of theory simply because those individuals may defy it in practice. Otherwise we would have to concede that criminal justice is a fallacy simply because there are some criminals who escape conviction.