The penalty is always death
June 2nd, 2008 by Mike Gogulski | Posted in mind control, policeOne of the great triumphs of civilization touted by liberal-minded thinkers around the world these days is the abolition of the death penalty in most of the planet’s “more-civilized” countries, with some notable exceptions. Without question, it is an advancement that the State’s premeditated, long-calculated and coldly applied murder of helpless prisoners, separated mostly by gulfs of time, space and sometimes personal reform, has come to be seen widely as an abomination which cannot be tolerated.
I would submit, though, that these thinkers celebrate too soon. The State’s ultimate penalty for real crime (initiations of force or fraud against people or their property) as well as all those non-crimes the State takes umbrage at is always death. This is the nature of the State; killing is the instrument by which it maintains itself.
To be sure, the State is mostly careful to not exercise the penalty too often. The system of compulsion and coercion, backed by the ultimate tool of death, is one which States have learned functions much better when the sword is cloaked in layers of misdirection and abstraction. The simple — and perhaps more honest — compulsion of the local tyrant demanding of his subjects, “Do it thus, or I shall kill you,” has been replaced with a long chain of escalation beginning with paper things like demands for compliance and citations, leading through more forceful papers such as summonses and warrants, but ultimately grounded upon the power of that barely-concealed blade.
If we accept the natural-rights view of self defense as given by libertarian theory, we can see that the penalty for every infraction is death.
Fail to pay your taxes? You will be killed.
Consume a proscribed substance? Death awaits you.
Neglect or ignore some trivial regulation? Murder is your fate.
“Oh come now,” they will cry, “the government doesn’t kill people for not paying their taxes!” In general this is true. In general people are compliant, whether out of worship or fear. But as situations escalate from non-compliance to the State’s demand for enforcement, be sure that the blade remains ready to plunge into the belly of the scofflaw.
I’m quite fond of hyperbolic examples. Let’s make one now.
Imagine that Bob is a fruit vendor. He sells apples, oranges and plums, and prices them by the piece. He advertises them at “12 for $3″ or “20 for $5″, or at whatever price he determines he can sell them profitably.
One day a policeman comes around to Bob’s stand and tells him about a new law. The State has adopted a new numbering system, duodecimal, which uses base-12 instead of base-10 decimal notation. The State has passed a law saying that all transactions, offers, sales, etc., must be denoted in duodecimal.
The policeman informs Bob that his signage is out of order. “12 for $3″ must be replaced by “10 for $3″, and “20 for $5″ must be replaced by “18 for $5″. Because Bob is in violation of the law, the policeman issues Bob a citation ordering him to comply and imposing a fine for breaking the law.
Bob naturally looks at this as ridiculous. Everyone he sells fruit to understands decimal notation, and to change it would only create confusion. Further, Bob knows that he’s committed no crime, no offense against the person or property of another. Bob refuses the citation and tells the policeman to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
A few days later, Bob receives a letter saying that the fine has been imposed on him by a judge, that he has 30 days to pay it, and that he must comply with the new duodecimal law. As before, Bob ignores this letter and this judge, harming and having harmed no person or thing.
Thirty days pass, sixty days, ninety. Bob keeps on selling his decminal-denominated fruit during the day and going home to enjoy time with his family in the evening. One day another letter arrives stating that the judge has issued an order which says that if Bob does not comply with the first letter within 5 days, he will be in criminal contempt of court and subject to arrest and a term of imprisonment. Bob is disturbed, of course, by this threat against his person, but ignores it as he might ignore the taunts of a bully on the street.
A week later, a group of armed men wearing clown suits appear at Bob’s door and say they are there to arrest Bob and take him before the judge. Bob tells them he won’t go, as he’s done nothing wrong, but the uniformed thugs are insistent. He closes the door in their faces. They break down the door and enter Bob’s home, guns drawn aganist Bob and his family.
Bob then, in fear of his life and the life of his family, perhaps draws a pistol and tells the clowns to go away. Perhaps he attempts to flee. The clowns shoot him dead.
In the aftermath, the killing is sanctified among the State’s organized criminals as justifiable, since Bob failed to comply with lawful demands, threatened police officers and resisted arrest. The State’s worshipers and pawns fall all over themselves to praise the brave uniformed thugs and denounce Bob as having “had it coming.”
The penalty is always death.
Stumble!




























nostate.com is licensed under a
19 Responses to “The penalty is always death”
By Aaron Kinney on Jun 3, 2008
An excellent way to illustrate what is so obvious to us, yet not apparent to so many. Good work.
By Kent McManigal on Jun 8, 2008
This is something I have pointed out many times, only to be told (by supposed libertarians) that I am exaggerating.
By Jeff Molby on Jul 2, 2008
Kent, here is your response to those who say you’re exaggerating: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,362144,00.html
By Jimi G on Jul 9, 2008
Brilliant post. Agreed with every word. Thank you.
By Romantic Violnce on Jul 14, 2008
I’ve always said that a ‘warrant’ of any kind, is tantamount to a de facto death sentence.
1789
By perlhaqr on Jul 17, 2008
You are saying what I am thinking.
By duh on Aug 8, 2008
that is a ridiculous leap in logic- the final penalty of death is for threatening to kill another- he’s not breaking one rule- he’s breaking a whole series of rules that escalate in penalty-
Have we not heard of the concept of civil disobedience? If the only crime committed is the signage rule, the guy pays a fine. But this guy doesn’t want anything to do with any of the rules… He’s making it pretty clear he wants to not be a part of that society- essentially declaring war -each step along the way he is making a more extreme statement about society until the final straw when he points the gun at the police and basically tells society “it’s either you or me”
I suppose a society with absolute anarchy would not contain such rules- but any system of rules is inherently going to be interelated and havegreater consequences for more harmful acts
Also… You seem to completely ignore the concept that the ultimate result of every action we take as mortal beings is death….or maybe you’ve used your magicians logic to prove to yourself that this whole life thing is going to end different for you…
By Mike Gogulski on Aug 8, 2008
@duh:
Okay, I appreciate what you’re saying. Many would agree with you. However, I submit that it’s a sad testament to the effectiveness of the conditioning you’ve undergone that somehow you’ve managed to lose the plot here.
There is a declaration of war here, you are right. But it is not Bob’s declaration. It is the declaration of arbitrary, unjustified and immoral authority. Bob doesn’t escalate, he acts morally at every step.
I will spell this argument out in greater detail at some point in the near future. I have to accept that you very likely may not “get it” then, either.
By Kent McManigal on Aug 8, 2008
Mike is right. In the “escalation” between Bob and the state, the state is the one in the wrong at each step. The state is the thief, the kidnapper, the aggressor at each step. For “duh” to say that the penalty of death is Bob’s fault is to accept that theft, kidnapping, or any other evil act are OK as long as it is an agent of the state committing the act. That is seriously twisted.
By Angela Keaton on Aug 8, 2008
Frickin’ A. Kent should have been the LP nominee.
By Romantic Violence on Aug 8, 2008
I love the way the ’state’ perverts language to justify it existence..fines, bail, arrest, capital puniishment, patriotism, regime change, are all euphemisms that if the average citizen engage in such behavior as theft, extortion, kidnapping, conspiracy to committ anything, murder, ransom, and hatred, just name a few, would earn you lifetime vacation in one of the nation’s prisons..all of which is done in your namesake-to keep society safe. Safe? Safe from what. Moreover, these euphemisms apply 90% to offenses that are consensual in the first place or ‘unlicensed’-without permit to live documentation. If it harms none, then do as thy will. So who watches the watcher?
1789
By Kent McManigal on Aug 8, 2008
Thanks Angela. I see that I am not cut out for the circus of compromise and equivocation that is “politics”. I’m not “pragmatic” enough. Besides, no one could ever seem to understand why an anarchist would be running for president. Seems obvious to me, but contradictory to others. I guess no one remembers the Trojan Horse.
By Bill St. Clair on Aug 11, 2008
Good explication of the “gun in the room” observation. Whenever the state is involved, in anything, there is always a gun in the room, held by the state’s minions, and pointed squarely at my head. “Obey or die!” is the state’s command.