Journal of the Association of Future Philosophers
The Ends Do Not Justify the Means, Part I
The Ethical Answer to the Problems of Anarchy and Government
A Manual of Effective Political Participation
In this interdisciplinary study of the conflict between justice, which philosophers study, and government, which political scientists and historians study, the author takes into account the empirical evidence and political science, thus replacing the ‘Ideal Government Assumption,’ with a reality-based concept of government, leading to the New Paradigm.
Roderick said, "Human life is the ultimate good; that’s why the only just government policy is to outlaw all abortions, except when absolutely necessary to save the mother's life.”
A heated discussion erupted as usual when a group met to discuss politics, but took a different turn this time due to a new friend joining the group.
Justice said, "Your proposal and all other government abortion policies are incompatible with justice."
Roderick said, "That's ridiculous. You've excluded all the possibilities.”
"On the contrary, you’ve overlooked government’s criminal nature."
Roderick said, "Whether you think government is criminal or not is irrelevant – it's going to do something – no policy is, itself, a policy,” Roderick said.
Justice said, "Since you claim that your proposed government abortion policy is the just one, your view that government’s criminal nature is irrelevant can't be correct for it conflicts with the Basic Ethical Principle (BEP) which says, ‘the ends do not justify the means.’ For, if the means are criminal, the ends, however desirable, will not make the means any less criminal," Justice said.
Roderick asked, “How can you say that about government? Where the hell is the smoking gun?”
Justice said, “We will discuss the evidence of its criminal nature, then answer your objections, explain some of its harm and danger to society, leading to the ethical answer to the problems of anarchy and government, and why alternatives to the ethical answer are insufficient.
"Government is a major source of crime based on racism, nationalism and religion. From the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt, to the nuking of Japanese babies in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, to the U.N. government perpetrating the Horror, murdering more than a million innocent people with its Iraqi embargo, using disease and malnutrition to murder Arab children, and above all, the Holocaust, where government murdered more than six million Jews, including over a million children – government has covered our planet with innocent blood.
"It commits theft, assault, rape and murder on a scale otherwise unimaginable, from the theft of lands of Indians to the rape of Bosnian women and the rape of Koreans used as 'comfort women' during WW II, to the murder of over 200 million human beings last century, a crime otherwise unheard of in all history.
"Government murdered Socrates and Jesus so dramatically, and now murders millions routinely, efficiently and without fanfare. And when not murdering people, it napalmed children, burning their skin off their bodies. When not bombing humans, it starved them to death, or murdered innocent persons by obstructing access to life-saving drugs and medical care. It created millions of refugees. In the Vietnam War, Nixon joined the one million human being club. With modern government technology, this ominous club is becoming less and less exclusive. When conscientious people motivated by justice protested its crimes, it committed the Kent State, Jackson State and Tienanmen Square Massacres.
"It created slave laws and Jim Crow laws. It murdered American Indians, murdered more than a million people in the Armenian genocide and murdered thousands in its Panama invasion.
"While we saw on TV its ferocious clubbing of Rodney King by CSLA alumni Stacey Koon and other government officials, most of its crimes are merely reported in newspapers. For example, when the U.S. government created its Wall of Racism along the Mexican American border, murdering many Hispanic immigrants every year, they are often reported anonymously in the papers.
"While some claimed government is the solution for the problem of anarchy, in Los Angeles, government existed throughout the anarchy in several levels– city government, county government, state government, federal government, and international U.N. government. Its existence did not prevent anarchy, but was a necessary cause of it. While some claimed government is the solution for the problem of civil war, the evidence refutes that theory. For instance, the British government did not prevent the American Revolution, but was a necessary cause of its occurrence.
"Government has a long rap sheet that extends from the beginning of its history to the present, from its restrictions on freedom of religion by ancient government to the nuclear bombings of innocent women, men and children by modern government. It has drawn first blood. Examining the evidence, we can understand the nature of government and rationally understand that, if we permit it to have power over the lives of innocent women, men and children, its rap sheet of innocent victims will reach many millions of human beings this century.
“I have cited only some of its crimes. If some Turks still dispute the Armenian genocide, if some Japanese still dispute the crimes of Nanking, or some Americans still dispute the crimes of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you can utilize your history education to provide many more examples so that they could still benefit from our discussion in understanding government’s criminal nature and the ethical answer.
“You’ve presented some of the important examples of government’s crimes against humanity. Considering all the evidence the historians have amassed, I can hardly think of a worst social disease,” Mary said. “I think that humanity can certainly do better than this – after all we are more intelligent than most other animals.”
Roderick said, “But when I read in the papers and in history books about massacres and genocides in various countries, I believe this is a natural occurrence; it is the natural condition of humanity. We have evolved through Darwinian evolution to be the type of creatures we are, and societies and civilizations also evolve through a process of social Darwinism, so that we and our societies are the best adapted to our environment – we should accept these unfortunate events as the price of civilization.”
Carol said, “How can atrocities be the price of civilization? They hinder civilization. In addition to the murder of many innocent persons, the crimes that government commits against humanity set us back decades and centuries. The building of cities, factories, homes, and social organizations that takes months, years, or decades to develop – the overawing power of government can destroy in weeks, days, minutes and even seconds, and the historical evidence makes dreadfully clear, government has done so, and we can rationally expect that it will do so again. Justice has made us acutely and irrevocably aware of the evil nature of government and the importance of finding the ethical answer to this most horrible social disease. Let’s proceed.”
Justice said, "Government divides society into wolves and sheep, rulers and ruled. This fundamental evil and unforgivable inequity makes all the other crimes of government possible. From an ethical point of view, no one is entitled to more rights than the rest of humanity, but under government, the rulers' actual rights exceed those of the people.
"For those of us who genuinely and sincerely believe in justice and take equal rights seriously, the problem of government is not merely that it commits theft, assault, rape and murder on a scale otherwise unheard of in all history. But more significantly, the main problem of government is its dividing humanity into rulers and ruled, wolves and sheep, creating the inequity of some persons ruling us human beings.
“The crime of government and its consequent harm to society defines the problem of government. I have presented the empirical test and the equality test to show the criminal nature of government. The arguments demonstrate that any theory that excludes such crimes is not a correct theory of government, and any theory that includes them is not a correct theory of justice.”
"The eternal conflict between justice, which philosophers study, and the criminal nature of government, which historians and political scientists study, leads to the irrevocable rejection of the Discredited Old Paradigm (DOP) which makes the bogus claim that government is compatible with justice. Becoming better acquainted with this conflict between justice and government is the intellectual force that is irrevocably driving the train to the New Paradigm in which government is criminal, and the rulers who create, maintain or perpetuate it are evil criminals.”
Mary said, “You’ve certainly did what you set out to do. I’m amazed that despite the unpalatable conflict between justice and government, people for millennia were led to believe the DOP. But I can see Roderick about to burst. Why don’t we consider all the serious objections to see if any arguments can block the move to the New Paradigm?”
Here Roderick blurted, "I can't stand it your lumping together government without distinction. I certainly don't want to defend fascism, but only democracy where the people vote. Are you equating Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the Holocaust? Are you equating the U.S. government with fascism?"
"I don't think you can equate the Holocaust with the nuking of babies in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the Holocaust, government murdered vastly more human beings than it murdered with nuclear bombs, hellish as they are. The U.S. government is certainly not fascist; despite what some say in the heat of political debate, it is a democracy, simply the best form of government,” Justice said.
“Furthermore, it is easy to distinguish them by simple observation. You can easily observe that the uniforms and insignia of U.S. government employees who nuked babies they called ‘Japs’ are not the same as those of the Nazis. Simply look – merely by opening your eyes and looking – you can see that their flags are different. For these reasons, you cannot equate them at all,” Justice said.
"Turning to democracy, unquestionably the best form of government, we find that it murdered Socrates; nuked babies; participated in the Horror, murdering Arab children; murdered American Indians; and established slave laws and Jim Crow Laws. It also destroyed many careers with its House Un-American Activities Committee.
“While the U.S. government has a ‘written constitution,’ ‘enumerated powers,’ ‘a bill of rights,’ ‘division of powers (a federal-state system),’ ‘judicial review,’ ‘checks and balances,’ ‘bicameral legislature,’ ‘separation of powers,’ ‘majority rule and minority rights,’ ‘civil service,’ ‘periodic elections,’ ‘civil rights,’ ‘an independent judiciary,’ ‘military under civilian control,’ ‘free elections,’ ‘government school system,’ etc. – it is a democracy, simply the best form of government – it is incompatible with justice.
"I have given numerous cases of crimes committed by democracy since it is by far the best form of government. Fascism is certainly the absolute worst. If the best form of government cannot be reconciled with justice, no government can be. If the best form of government is criminal, it is remarkable that some political philosophers engaged in morally repugnant attempts to justify it."
Roderick said, “You’ve criticized government and anarchy – haven’t you then ruled out all the possibilities? And since you rule out anarchy as criminal, how do you propose we deal with anarchists?”
Carol said, “I introduce the concept of nostatism, defined as a society without anarchy and government that is just, free and peaceful.”
Justice said, “I believe that those who advocate anarchy are well within their rights of free speech to do so, but those who cross the line and engage in anarchy are criminals. Hence, we are deontologically justified in using appropriate force against them, including deadly force, considering the seriousness of their crimes. The deontological justification is the crucial moral element. On the other side, consequentialist moral theories such as ethical egoism, pragmatism and utilitarianism attempt to justify actions by their consequences. But, since justice is about deserts, entitlements or more generally, what is equitable, these theories fail to capture justice, despite centuries of vain attempts to finesse it. This is why consequentialists face an unpalatable tension in their theories – an eternal conflict between unjust means and the consequences they desire above all else.”
Carol said, “Of course not. Some, out of an unthinking sense of ‘patriotism,’ psychologically feel an obligation to love government and appallingly attempt to justify the unjustifiable, even when we tell them what it has done to innocent babies in Nagasaki, Nanking and Auschwitz. We can only reason with the reasonable – since you are not part of government, you are absolutely innocent of its crimes. Perhaps because you have been socialized to psychologically identify with the rulers, you have committed the sheep-wolf fallacy. Avoiding this fallacy, many of us are unwaveringly loyal to justice and love our hometown, our city and our country.”
Roderick said, “You’ve shown that government officials have done criminal things for which they should certainly receive justice, but that doesn’t mean all government is criminal or that all the rulers who create and perpetuate it are criminals. After all, they cannot know what crimes future rulers will commit.”
Carol replied, “I will present a story that illustrates how Justice has already refuted this argument. Using a large time travel device, a 21st century historian goes to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and through a series of events, which I omit here, the Founding Fathers gain access to her computer containing a huge collection of history books, including many about the Convention and the U.S. government.
“Some congratulate others on their success in creating a government that becomes the superpower of the 21st century, puts a man on the moon, explores the planets of our solar system, and creates the richest country on the planet – they urge the immediate signing of the Constitution. But, others read about its slave and Jim Crow laws, the Great Terrorism where it nuked babies, its role in the Horror, and its Vietnam War where it murdered millions of human beings.
“They read about its Wall of Racism across the Mexican-American border where it murdered many Hispanic immigrants in their attempts to improve their socio-economic status, its invasion of Panama where, according to the movie ‘the Panama Deception,’ it murdered thousands, its Kent State and Jackson State Massacres where it murdered students, its HUAAC where it destroyed the careers of many people. Looking at the facts, taking the evidence into account, they decline to sign, arguing the ends don’t justify the means. They point out that the rulers who create, maintain or perpetuate such a government are criminals.
“Some claim that they were supporting creating the U.S. government because they did not know what they were doing. How could they know about these future events? But others point out that they are all well educated and very knowledgeable of political science and of the crimes government had committed over the millennia – hence, they cannot claim innocent ignorance of government’s criminal nature.
“Here a clever delegate points out that these future histories will not necessarily occur since they do not include the discussion they are having at the moment, and argues these books are false. But, Ben Franklin suggests a sufficient explanation of these omissions – that the delegates are part of a thought experiment!
“But, what is its purpose, some ask, is it to see if they would create the U.S. government with their eyes open, since now they can no longer pretend innocent ignorance? Ben Franklin suggests its purpose is more than that – to ask whether an educated person can ethically create, maintain or perpetuate government knowing that it will commit serious crimes against humanity, without knowing the specific crimes it will commit – whether he could turn his back on humanity and justice, become a collaborator, aiding and abetting government, and remain innocent.”
Roderick said, “You’ve made a sneaky hidden assumption with your tricky constitutional convention story that determinism is true. You haven’t taken free will into account. Look at your mind – don’t you notice that you make free decisions? The subsequent rulers were guilty for committing crimes of their own free will, but that doesn’t mean the Fathers are responsible for the actions of these subsequent evil rulers.”
Mary said, “I suspect that the typical believer in free will holds that view based on his or her experience of making decisions that is up to him or her. However, these subjective experiences do not help us reach a correct view of whether people have free will.
“Subjectively, James feels it is up to him. However, in deciding whether that feeling is true, this subjective feeling does not help at all. Suppose James decides to walk down Oxford Street, but upon standing, suddenly feels sick. After the doctor gives him medicine, James loses his memory of his Oxford decision and how he reached it. Confronted again by the same choice of which street to take home, he now makes what he subjectively feels to be a free decision, choosing Oxford Street.
“But, before walking home, James takes another dose of his medicine, again losing his memory of his decision, so now he considers the matter again, again making what he subjectively feels to be a free decision, deciding again to walk down Oxford Street.
“After taking the medicine as many times as you like, every time deciding on Oxford Street, he stops taking the medicine, remembers all his previous decisions, realizing he had no free will at all but to choose Oxford Street.”
Roderick said, “Since James’s decision is a free one, he would sometimes choose Oxford Street, but at other times, he would choose Divinity Street. He wouldn’t make the same decision every time.”
Mary said, “This story suggests a way to help decide the question of free will. By creating such a memory drug, one that is as safe as marijuana, scientists and philosophers could safely conduct empirical tests to find whether people have free will, and if so, to investigate which decisions are free.”
Mary said, “Imagine this situation where scientists discover a reaction which every time produces one electron which has the same velocity, and they repeat this reaction many times with the same result. If the scientists produce this reaction again and this time, they measure the position with as much accuracy as possible, they could measure the position and infer the velocity from previous experiments. They would know the position and velocity with an accuracy exceeding what HUP allows if both its position and velocity were measured at the same time. This thought experiment shows that HUP by itself does not prove indeterminism.
“Of course, we can easily imagine other possibilities where scientists can overcome Heisenberg. Suppose scientist find a reaction that produces only two subatomic particles and every time they conduct this experiment, measuring both particles’ velocities, they find they are equal or related in an unvarying way. If they repeat the experiment, this time measuring one particle’s velocity, they would know both particles’ velocity. And if they measure the other particles’ position, they would know its position and velocity with greater accuracy than Heisenberg allows if scientists measured both magnitudes of the same particle.
Carol said, “We’ve gone off on a tangent – let’s get back to the Constitutional Convention story. Whether Mary’s method works or not, and if subsequent rulers have free will – that will not exonerate the fathers. The free will of subsequent rulers might explain the criminal nature of government, but does not deny its criminal nature. If their free will is the correct explanation of government’s criminal nature, it would suggest that if Hitler, Truman, Nixon, Boutros-Boutros Ghali, Clinton and the first Bush had been replaced with computers, government would not have perpetrated the Holocaust, nuked babies, napalmed children or perpetrated the Horror. If that is what you are proposing, how are you going to replace the rulers with computers?”
Roderick said, "Philosophers have recognized the problem of unequal rights for a long time, and that government does things to people that are unjust to do to other persons without their consent, and philosophers, such as Hobbes, have given us social contract theories where the people consent to government."
"Socrates’ social contract, Hobbes’ social contract, Locke’s social contract – which one did you sign? Hobbes knew enough history to know that such an event never occurred. It is hypothetical consent," Justice said. "She says, 'He raped me.' He says, 'I did not. She consented.' She says, 'I did not consent. He says, 'Well, she hypothetically consented.' Was she raped or did she consent?" Justice asked. "Substituting, 'It would have been rational for her to consent' or 'She would have consented if she were behind a veil of ignorance' hardly makes the argument any more convincing."
"In Rawls' theory, hypothetical consent is sufficient since the original position is the only way to decide on what is just to which all reasonable people can agree, and they will agree on a government that enforces his liberty and difference principles. It is not meant to deal with sexual consent,” Roderick said.
"The rape case is useful since in this case we take consent seriously – hypothetical consent doesn't meet the ethical standard if we need the consent of the governed to ethically justify government. Rawls presents a thought experiment by which he claims that justice requires government to enforce Rawls' two principles. He is saying, in effect, that he does not need actual consent," Mary said.
"I would like to point out another reason Rawls' view of justice differs from mine. I will present a thought experiment about the society of George-Rawls, where generation after generation, all the workers are blue collar and the society has one severely disabled person who lives on $20,000 a year from the government. This $20,000 comes from a tax on two especially hard working persons who work a lot of overtime in the most difficult and hazardous conditions. The two hard workers make $30,000 a year before taxes and each pays $10,000 a year in taxes. Under the tax laws of the society, the especially hard workers are subject to a $10,000 tax. All other workers make $20,000 a year and pay no taxes. Hence if the two hard workers decided to take a typical job for $20,000 before taxes, they would end up with $10,000 after taxes. They prefer the overtime and hazardous work and end up with $20,000 after taxes just like everyone else," Mary said. "On Rawls' view, any change from this distribution would violate the difference principle since it would create inequality that does not benefit the least well off group in society, but this distribution is unjust. Hence, if Rawls’ two principles are implied by his original position, then his original position is incompatible with justice."
“You may have already consented to nuking babies.”
Roderick said, "But in the case of the U.S. government, it gets its power from the consent of the governed."
"This argument and all other consent theories don't work," Justice said. "Since you don't have an ethical right to nuke babies, establish slave laws, murder Native Americans or Arab children or commit any other crimes for that matter, you cannot ethically consent to a government that does.”
Roderick said, “Philosophers, such as Hobbes, have produced theories of justice where such activities are just.”
Justice said, “Philosophers do not have free will to turn injustice into justice. Any theory that includes such crimes is not a correct theory of justice.”
Justice said, “Since we are not part of government, we are innocent of these crimes. These examples are important in understanding government’s criminal nature. Since it exists over years, decades or centuries, we need to look at its rap sheet to avoid misunderstanding it. If you only look at small time slices, you might miss important insights into its criminal nature. Someone who makes that mistake might realize it was nuking babies on August 6, then again on August 9, but, aha, what about August 8? In addition, these examples are important for understanding how it protects its criminals from justice and obstructs justice for its victims – continuing injustice – perpetuating evil.”
Roderick said, "The justification of the excessive rights of the rulers is that government works."
Justice asked, "Works for whom? For the rulers?"
Roderick said, "It's not only good for the rulers, it’s also good for the ruled."
"While this argument resembles that of Southern slave owners, that slavery is really good for the slaves, not merely for the slave owners, we should evaluate it on its own merits. While this is a political science question, we don't have to take Political Science 415, where students examine how power is distributed, to realize that under government the wolves eat the sheep.
“Are you a wolf or a sheep? Your status in the political food chain is vastly more relevant than whether you are liberal or conservative. The wolves rule the sheep and that affects whether you win or lose from government – this is tragically obvious in the case of the Gulf War.
“THE SHEEP: Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans were killed. In addition, tens of thousands contracted the debilitating Gulf War sickness and will probably suffer the rest of their truncated lives from the War.
“THE WOLVES: the first Bush and Schwartzkopf won their Gulf War, and so did the Kuwaiti wolves who returned to power and privilege. Saddam Hussein, the top Iraqi wolf, lost part of his military, but maintained his position in power for years without suffering from Gulf War sickness.
“INTERNATIONAL WOLVES: Preceding their war, United Nations wolves such as Boutros-Boutros Ghali imposed an embargo on the Iraqi sheep in order to punish the Iraqi wolves. The U.N. government’s embargo cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of children, according to news reports – another holocaust against innocent sheep.
Discredited Old Paradigm Political Philosophy is for the Wolves.
“To ask a sheep to decide between liberalism and conservatism is silly. After all, a sheep cannot tell the wolves what to do. A wolf such as the first Bush can make a real choice of liberalism or conservatism since he is a wolf.
“Of course some do not see themselves as sheep. Even though they are not rulers, they psychologically identify with the wolves. Just as dogs who think they are humans are called 'shmogs,' I suggest we call sheep who think they are wolves – ‘shwolves.’
“From the wolves point of view, the best sheep are shwolves. They run with wolves. In fact, wolves call on the shwolves for help, and shwolves often help the wolves rule, hurt and murder other sheep. In the Gulf War, the wolves didn’t hurt each other; instead they used the shwolves to kill other sheep. Perhaps, the 50,000 persons with the Gulf War sickness now realize their cost for being shwolves.
"Citing other crimes that also refute Roderick’s argument, I ask whether the partisans of government believe their peculiar institution was good for the persons murdered in the Kent State, Jackson State and Tienanmen Square Massacres? Do they sincerely believe the young Americans who were drafted and shipped to Vietnam as cannon fodder, then shipped back in body bags for their families, benefited from government? (These body bags might not be your color – but look, they’re just your size!) Do they believe that government was good for Clarence Chance, an innocent man whom it imprisoned for 17 years? Can they believe sincerely that government was good for the victims used in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and Nazi experiments? May I remind you that during the Cold War, Soviet and U.S. government rulers built deep underground nuclear-proof shelters for themselves, so that in case they started a nuclear war, they would live while your children die? Regardless of what the partisans might say, the powerless have often paid the cost of government with a pound of flesh and a gallon of blood. Dividing society into rulers and ruled, wolves and sheep, has not only caused anarchy, it is an evil underlying all of government's other crimes against humanity."
Roderick said, “Since ethical concepts apply only to persons, and since government is not a person, but a certain type of organization, how can moral terms apply to it?”
Justice said, “When we talk about government’s criminal nature, we are saying that the rulers who create, maintain and perpetuate it are criminals, and collaborators who give it aid and comfort are aiding and abetting criminals, betraying innocent human beings.”
G. We can understand government’s criminal nature by examining the evidence.
"You haven't yet defined government by genus and species. I have a vague idea of what you are talking about, but could you be more precise?" Roderick asked.
"I didn't offer a definition of 'government' since we already know what is or is not government. For any definition, such as that of Max Weber, we would have to examine it to see if it is adequate, or whether it is too broad or too narrow. That presupposes that we already know what is or is not government," Justice said.
"Despite your reason, if I were to use Max Weber's conception of government, it's obvious that nothing in that concept implies that it murders people. So you haven't proved your case," Roderick said
James interceded, "I will give an analogy to show your objection is not sufficient to refute Justice's arguments. If some were to suggest injecting millions of people with large quantities of battery fluid, you would object that that would murder millions. If they were to reply that nothing in the concept of battery fluid implies it is poisonous, would that carry any weight with you? Would you agree to roll up your sleeve?"
"But philosophers such as Robert Nozick, Kant, John Locke, Plato, Ayn Rand, and John Rawls, have theories of just governments. They must think that their proposed governments are possible." Roderick said.
Justice said, "These philosophers were using what I call, 'the Ideal Government Assumption,' where they fantasize of government that doesn't commit crimes against society. I believe that assumption has a value in their theories. Sometimes economists assume perfect knowledge to understand some economic factor. But, when they want correct economic theories, they eliminate contrary-to-fact assumptions such as the perfect knowledge assumption, taking the distribution and cost of knowledge into account. Justice is relaxing the 'Ideal Government Assumption,' taking account of government's criminal nature, leading to interesting results. While ideal government doesn’t nuke babies, in reality, government has nuked real flesh and blood babies. I suggest that a major difference between Justice’s view and those who are wedded to the Ideal Government Assumption is epistemological. Using the methods of political science and history, we reach knowledge of government that differs for the views reached using the Ideal Government Assumption.
“Furthermore, even if God were to magically create an Ideal Government, such as Nozick’s and Rawls’s, no force in the universe could prevent it over time from committing serious crimes against society,” Carol said. “While philosophers often give some thought to human nature in their theories, by failing to study and take account of the criminal nature of government, they plant themselves and their theories into the Disredited Old Paradigm. The conflict between justice and government – that eternal conflict is driving the train to the New Paradigm.
Roderick said, “I now agree that, of course, government is guilty of serious crimes. You cannot seriously expect government, considering all it does, not to commit crimes from time to time. But, your standards that you use to judge government are too high.”
Justice said, “In the 20th century it murdered over 200 million persons – how many is compatible with justice? And how many is OK with you?” Justice asked. “And the holocausts government will commit in the future if it is not abolished – are they sincerely OK with you?”
Roderick said, “If we apply a standard of zero tolerance for injustice, no organization could be ethically justified. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, which stands for the rights of the oppressed Palestinians and condemns terrorism, would be a criminal organization because of its terrorism against innocent Israelis, including children and babies. I want to suggest that we formulate a standard that provides more tolerance for injustice by an otherwise good organization than your standard for an organization to be criminal. Merely because it nuked two cities does not mean the U.S. government is criminal.”
Carol said, “Attempting to reconcile injustice with justice is an irrational way to a philosophically respectable ethics; it is a recipe for disaster when you start promoting a tolerance for injustice – you lose your moral balance down that steep slide. If the PLO blowing up an Israeli baby is OK with you, what about Al Queda (the base) destroying three thousand innocent people?; and if that is ethically OK with you, what about the U.S. government destroying hundreds of thousands, including babies, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?; and if that is ethically OK with you, what about the German government destroying over six million Jews, including over a million children in the Holocaust? When you advocate tolerance for murder, you need to face the question – Roderick, what is your number? What level of evil are you proposing as your ethically acceptable number of murders? Please tell us Roderick, in your theory of justice, what is the legitimate role in a civilized society for an organization that destroyed the World Trade Center?, what is the legitimate role of an organization that nuked two cities full of babies in two cities?, what is the legitimate role of an organization that committed the Holocaust?”
Roderick said, "Since in the vast preponderance of time, government does not nuke cities full of babies or perpetuate the Holocaust, these crimes are aberrations or anomalies."
"Anomalies within the DOP. The New Paradigm can easily handle these facts," Justice said.
Roderick said, “The New Paradigm assumes that human beings are perfect, but since that is not the case, the New Paradigm has no relation to the real world.”
Justice said, “The New Paradigm makes no such assumption.”
Carl, a philosophy professor, said, “The crimes you cited show that government can become corrupt, but Justice’s arguments aren’t applicable to governments that aren’t corrupt.”
Justice said, “In his morally repugnant attempt to justify the tree of government, the partisan often resorts to two typical sorts of arguments - one is denial and the other is a variety of ‘the-ends-justify-the-means.’
“But the more sophisticated denial arguments attempt to shift the problem onto something else. For example, Carl blames corrupt government for the Holocaust, the terrorist bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, etc.
“This is based on a utopian fantasy of government that didn't commit the Holocaust, that didn't commit the terrorist bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that didn't create and enforce its Wall of Racism across the Mexican-American border, murdering many Hispanic immigrants.
“A fantasy where no political prisoners exist, where innocent people are not imprisoned for growing marijuana or producing other drugs, where the Kent State, Jackson State and Tienanmen Square massacres didn't happen, where Salman Rushdie wasn't threatened with execution, where the wolves don't eat the sheep – where the children murdered by the U.S. government's bombings in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are still alive and going to school.
“Of course, many famous philosophers such as John Locke, Ayn Rand, John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Plato and numerous others have fantasies, some rather elaborate, of a tree of government that produces a different sort of fruit than it does. However, the differences between their fantasies and the criminal nature of government shows an anomaly in their DOP,” Justice said.
Carol said, “While some advocate emulating the U.S. government in the hopes of creating democracies that do not commit such crimes. However, as one theatre arts instructor would say, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over in the hope of a different result. Yet, partisans of government have created governments with the hope that their governments wouldn’t be criminal, but their governments’ crimes reveal their inexhaustible hubris.
“Subversive philosophers such as Hobbes, and semi-subversive philosophers such as Rawls and Nozick, who have more than enough IQ points to understand the criminal nature of government, who have well founded knowledge of its crimes against innocent women, men and babies, and can understand that it will commit more crimes against irreplaceable persons, including babies, yet choose to defend it to their students, they fall ethically short, making themselves less than ethically admirable,” Carol said. “When they use their unequalled intellects to defend government knowing what it does to innocent babies, I will never forgive them.”
Roderick said, “Human nature is evil, and these crimes are caused by human nature, not government. After all, people have murdered other people long before Cain murdered Abel.”
Justice said, “This is yet another type of denial argument. However, blaming human nature does not exonerate government. While it might be a proposed explanation of why government commits crimes against society, human nature is not a sufficient explanation. After all, how many Jews could Hitler have gassed without government? How many babies could Truman have nuked without government?”
Josephine, a political science professor, asked, "Can government do good without doing evil?"
Justice said, “When denial fails -- when the partisan admits the criminal nature of government, that the wolves eat the sheep – he typically argues that the ends justify the means.
“Extreme examples of this sort of ends-justify-the-means are Hobbesian-style arguments, where the partisan argues that government is necessary to prevent ‘a war of all against all.’
“Less extreme types of ends-justify-the-means arguments include partisan’s claims that it is necessary for society since it creates respectable borders which make society safe and secure, or that it is necessary since it prevents global warming from making the planet uninhabitable. Another type of ends-justify-the-means argument is where the partisan argues that he is getting more benefits than burdens from government, and hence it is in his self-interest.
“All these arguments of the partisan fail as ethical justification for his peculiar institution since the ends do not justify the means. The partisan is committing the fallacy of government – making the bogus assumption that government is an ethically legitimate means, that it is somehow compatible with justice – a view that flies of the face of the evidence of its criminal nature that historians have amassed, only a portion of which we have discussed here today. If the means are ethically illegitimate, the ends, however desirable, will not make the means ethically legitimate. If the means are criminal, the ends, however desirable, will not make the means any less criminal.
“Perhaps this explains why the partisan of government typically vacillates between denial and the-ends-justify-the-means arguments. It is indicative of an anomaly in his DOP between the criminal nature of government on one hand and justice on the other.
“In Yugoslavia, Serbian government officials denied its crimes against Albanians, and when the U.S. government bombed innocent persons, government officials vacillated between denial and the-ends-justify-the-means arguments.
“In view of the fruit of the tree of government, including the anarchy in Yugoslavia, we can rationally expect the partisan to continue vacillating in his morally repugnant, and vain, attempts to reconcile government with justice. Despite any self-serving claims that he is well-intentioned, in actuality, the partisan of government is a vicious partisan of injustice,” Carol said.
“When government commits crimes against society, its legal system protects its criminals from justice and obstructs justice for its victims,” Justice said.
Bartholomew said, “How could that be possible since the legal system is a justice system. After all, you can’t have justice without law.”
Justice said, “Philosophers understand the difference between them due to their study of concepts such as law or justice and because of their knowledge of the case of Socrates, the paradigm case of ‘law and order.’ The government followed all its laws and the result was its murder of Socrates. In the case of the Holocaust, many followed justice by courageously hiding Jews from the Nazis, although their actions were not in accord with the law.”
Carol said, “Pseudo-intellectuals who confuse law with justice commit the Socratic Fallacy – they are over two millennia behind the curve.”
“In the Bowers v. Hardwick case (1986), the rulers claimed the right to arrest homosexuals in Georgia who engage in sodomy, a fun and pleasurable activity. This case illuminates the irreconcilable conflict between the justice system and their legal system, and how the friends of justice must overcome the partisan’s legal system to fulfill their responsibility,” Justice said.
“The rulers outlawed all sodomy in the wording of their law, but they enforced it only against homosexual sodomy. Hence, the wording of their law does not indicate the extent of their crime; their actions show this crime was directed against homosexuals only – a hate crime.
“Nor were the victims only those who were arrested, but every homosexual who lived in fear of the rulers' gunmen. The enforcement of this law threatened all homosexuals who enjoyed, or wanted to enjoy, the pleasure, fun and joy of sodomy.”
Max interrupted “But I strongly feel that homosexuality is wrong.”
“Why?” Justice asked.
“Because I did not enjoy it,” Max replied.
“Of course, the victims of this law are denied full restitution, and the rulers' legal system protects the rulers from justice. With the passage of time and the passing away of victims and criminals, less and less justice is possible. This is part of government's modus operandi,” Justice said.
“When it imposed its slave laws and its Jim Crow laws, the legal system obstructed justice for the victims and for the rulers. The victims who survived slavery didn't even receive the appearance of justice, while the rulers' legal system protected the rulers from justice.
“This is the modus operandi it followed when HUAAC destroyed the careers of many people, when the rulers imprisoned Mohammed Ali for refusing to become a slave of government, when it restricted abortions, murdering many women in unsafe abortions, and when it committed the terrorist bombings of babies in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
“While partisans might view its legal system as a good substitute for justice, every year its gunmen capture and intimidate many innocent persons, imprison innocent persons, sometimes for years, and sometimes execute innocents; government protects its criminals from justice, while obstructing justice for its countless victims.
The cost of government on society – the criminal legal system
Roderick said, “How can you complain about the U.S. government’s criminal legal system – it’s the best.”
“Reformers have failed to rehabilitate the criminal legal system so that it is no longer criminal. The government uses its legal system to obstruct justice for innocent persons, and it protects the criminals from justice. The existence of the criminal legal system puts us in danger; this is a terrible cost of government on the politically weak, especially young male blacks, Hispanics or other minorities.”
“I am not arguing here that these crimes show that government is criminal – for I have already shown that – but to show the extent of the problem of government and the ethical responsibility of the friends of justice.”
“The justice system is being overpowered by the legal system, and while political science can help us understand why this is the case, the friends of justice, whenever and wherever we can do so, accept an ethical responsibility to administer justice.”
Roderick said, "When a government commits a crime against society, a higher level of government can later impose justice on a lower level government. A federal government can impose justice on a local government and an international government such as the U.N. can later impose justice on a federal government.
"Therefore, although government has murdered over 200 million human beings in the last century and we can rationally expect that it will murder millions more in this one, it is ethically acceptable since a higher government can later impose justice." Roderick argued.
Justice said, "One paradox of this view is that it leads to an infinite regress since, for every government, a higher government is required. The empirical evidence supports this rational argument – for after the U.N. government perpetrated the Horror, murdering more than a million people, mostly children, no higher government imposed justice.
"Furthermore, as long as the wolves hold power, government has no free will to administer justice to them, nor can it force them to pay restitution to their victims. But, the most important reason your argument fails, Roderick, is that the innocent human beings that government murders are irreplaceable, thus forever preventing justice for these victims of government.
"While government created nuclear technology, nuked babies, promotes nuclear proliferation and makes us vulnerable to another Truman, we can rationally expect it to continue to protect the wolves from justice," Justice said.
O. Roderick’s Promise
Roderick said, “You’ve been assuming the criminal nature of government won’t change. Some of us recognize the problem and have been trying to change its nature so it doesn’t commit any more crimes. I promise that it will become a good citizen. I solemnly promise that we will change its nature so it never ever again harms any innocent person.”
Justice said, “In view of the history of government that extends for millennia, I cannot accept your promise.”
Mary said, “We’ve heard the reasons for accepting the New Paradigm and we’ve also heard Justice refute the attempts to block the move to the New Paradigm. The next step is to understand better the costs government externalizes onto society, and the ethical answer to this social disease.”
“At the time, the Voice of America and the BBC repeated the government story. Obviously they are government organs. But, why did the network news and other media propagate the government story? Why did major newspapers and magazines rely on an unreliable source? Why did reporters use up some of their own credibility to promote the government story? Were they unaware of the history of government? Surely they knew that when Nixon said, ‘I am not a crook,’ that was government talking. When government officials issued statements about the Vietnam police action, reporters knew that was government talking.
“Of course, at the time of the shootdown, reporters lacked legitimate sources, hence they were at the mercy of government. As has occurred before, government officials took advantage of the news media, which allowed government to take advantage. But, eventually the truth emerged. The airliner was squawking the civilian message; it was in the civilian airliner corridor; it was not diving steeply as if to make a bombing run. And, according to a February 1996 article in the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. government agreed to pay over $60 million in restitution to the families of the Iranian victims.
“The shootdown story was not the first time the media, misinformed by government, misled its audience. We saw this during Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal. The movie ‘The Panama Deception’ reveals official lying. The media printed and broadcast the first Bush’s ‘Read my lips’ comments.
“However, government statements are not a problem merely for the media. They create an ethical dilemma for the Partisan of Government, including any political philosopher who tries to reconcile ethics with government. In the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant formulated his Categorical Imperative, according to which, you should act on the principle that you would make a principle for all persons. Lying cannot be such a principle since it would defeat the purpose of making statements, yet, remarkably, Kant believed in government. Lying is part of the nature of government, from Hitler’s lies to Fuhrman’s lies, from the Soviet government’s to the Egyptian government’s lies.
Government lying – the horns of the ethical dilemma
Glossing over the immorality of lying won’t make it go away. Nor can the media be relied upon to stop the propagation of government statements. Quite the contrary, the empirical evidence indicates the media can be expected to help government spread misinformation.
Some might suggest voting the liars out of office. However, one vote out of millions is a form of ineffective decision-making – to engage in such ineffective decision-making is to implicitly support the status quo. Furthermore, elected officials are not the only ones making government statements. In the O.J. trial, Detective Fuhrman lied like a cop. In the case of the Gulf War sickness, pentagon officials lied like cops, even though they are merely bureaucrats.
The Partisan of Government might fantasize about a truthful government, but the dilemma he faces is to either argue that lying is ethically OK or to confess that government conflicts with ethics – on which horn of this ethical dilemma would he prefer to sit?
"To continue with our discussion of the problem of government, I will next present a story of a society where a person wants to rule the rest. If he could create a weapon all by himself, whereby he could inflict harm, including death on others without others being able to harm him, some would resist him, but after killing them and making that an example for others, the rest would have to submit. To rule others he needs a desire to rule and a more powerful weapon than others can bring to bear on him.
“Since no such weapon exists, if he wants to rule others he needs the help of some to create such a weapon. He might hire some gunmen to enforce his rule and to protect him, but some of these gunmen might kill him and take over. Since no one has an ethical right to ruler others, if he were to persuade them with a 'noble' lie that he has an ethical right to rule them and that they have an ethical obligation to obey him and to help him, he would find things easier and safer for him. Furthermore, if he were to persuade the people of the ‘noble’ lie, they would be less likely to resist him, and some might be his enthusiastic supporters," Carol said.
"Governments that do not effectively socialize the people with the ‘noble’ lie tend to be replaced by governments that do. Hence when we examine the world, we see the stable governments are ones that effectively socialize the people with the 'noble' lie. Government tends to give its gunmen a double dose of socialization, once in the government schools and once in boot camp and other military training."
"Hence, the 'noble' lie is one of the tragic costs of government. In fact, ideas which government schools exclude are sometimes more important that what they teach. Most people never question their childhood socialization. And of those who do, most cannot overcome it. Only a few overcome government’s socialization and reach an intellectual level where they can think about the political reality without any significant influence of this socialization.”
Carol said, “Government spies on the people to enforce its rule and maintain power over us. Of course, some reformers have attempted to prevent government spying against us, but as long as government exists, they have no free will to protect us.
D. Nuclear Terrorism - "Fat Men and Little Boys."
"I will discuss another harm government causes us – the problem of terrorism. While the Partisans have offered differing definitions, terrorism is defined in the New Paradigm as attacking innocent persons to affect government. Since terrorism involves attacking innocent persons, it is always ethically wrong within the New Paradigm, a fundamentally deontological ethical theory,” Justice said.
"Terrorism is a case of government related violence (GRV), and the definition of terrorism leads to the conclusion that terrorism cannot exist without government. Furthermore, government makes us vulnerable to terrorism, especially large-scale terrorism, three ways.
1. Government creates terrorist weapons.
"Nuclear weapons are government's gift to humanity, with government funding scientists to design uranium and plutonium bombs, and subsequently building increasingly smaller and more destructive ‘Fat Men and Little Boys.’
“In Children of the Atomic Bomb: An American Physician's Memoir of Nagasaki, Hiroshima and the Marshall Islands, James N. Yamazaki, with Louis B. Fleming, describes the bombings’ effects on pregnant women and children.
“He wrote, ‘Fusa was six months pregnant when the bomb detonated, and her home in Takao-machi collapsed. She was 1,600 yards from the hypocenter. She felt violent movement of the baby within her, then no movement. Nothing.’
“He also wrote about the effects of the bombing on children. ‘A nurse escorted a young mother and her five year old son. With one glance, I knew I was seeing for the first time the terrible effect that an atomic bomb can have on the unborn. I concealed my feelings and proceeded with a routine pediatric examination.... I confirmed the reduced head size. His erratic and uncontrolled behavior was evidence that mental retardation was also present.’
“Yamazaki also includes the story of Fujio Tsujimoto, five years old at the time of the bombing, he was at Yamazato Elementary School. When the alarm was sounded, he rushed into a shelter.
“According to Fujio's account, ‘My brother and sisters were late in coming into the shelter; so they were burnt and crying.’ He goes on to say that his mother and sister died the following day, and then his brother died.
"It also created and used chemical and biological weapons to murder children. With the available evidence provided by its ominous historical record, we can rationally expect that government will finance and develop new and extreme terrorist weapons in the future. It spread nuclear technology and materiel, and created incentives for spreading the threat that faces us.
2. Terrorism is part of government's modus operandi.
"Government has used its terrorist weapons, with the U.S. government nuking babies being the paradigm case. Studying the Great Terrorism is important since it is the only available example where terrorists nuked cities, murdering innocent women, men and children. Since it uncorked its nuclear genie on babies in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and revealed the face of government, I must wonder if the partisans have human feelings.” Carol said.
3. Being ruled by government makes us vulnerable to terrorism.
"In the terrorist attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, innocent babies were targeted for destruction to affect the Japanese government. The Japanese government's existence was a necessary condition for the terrorist bombings. The attacks against innocent babies were perpetrated to shock the Japanese rulers into surrender. The terrorists murdered innocent sheep to get at the wolves.”
“Hold on there,” Roderick said. “They intended to end the war – a war the Japanese government started with Pearl Harbor; they had no intention to harm innocents.”
“If it is foreseen, it is intentional; if it is foreseeable, then any claim of innocent ignorance is false. The act of nuking cities was intentional. Since that involved nuking babies, that was intentional. If you wish to believe the nuking of babies was unintentional, then replacing such rulers with well-intentioned rulers won’t solve the problem of government,” Carol said. “But to get back to reality, partisans of government have attempted to exonerate the U.S. government for its terrorist hate crime by blaming the Japanese government for the attack on Pearl Harbor, but that cannot create an ethical right to murder babies. Their argument shows that these babies were targeted for murder because they were living under government. This explains their murder, but in no way whatsoever does it justify it, nor does it minimize or change the fact that the U.S. government is a terrorist hate organization.
"This explains why successful terrorist attacks are such heinous crimes. To affect government, the terrorists create massive numbers of innocent casualties, including babies, and the more impervious the government, the more horrendous the terrorist attack. By categorizing terrorist attacks that murder up to 1,000 persons as small-scale terrorism, more than that and up to 100,000 persons as medium-scale terrorism, more than that and up to 1,000,000 persons as large-scale terrorism, and more than 1,000,000 as super-terrorism, we can understand the magnitude of the problem.
"Therefore, when we contemplate the enormous number of innocent victims that terrorists would have to murder to successfully affect U.S. government policy, we understand the danger of another Truman that we face. Since in the case of the U.S. government, conventional bombs are likely to be ineffective, but large-scale chemical, biological or nuclear attacks are likely to be effective, we are especially vulnerable from these weapons.
"The partisan’s fantasy that government protects society keeps us in danger of another Truman committing large-scale terrorism. The partisan of government might believe that it protects us from such weapons by preventing terrorists from smuggling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. However, the evidence of government losing its drug war should make rational people question these claims.
"Despite its Draconian laws, its huge drug-war spending, its imprisonment of many innocent people using its laws; drug businesspersons, processors, financiers, entrepreneurs, shippers, advertisers, wholesalers and retailers bring huge amounts of drugs – from Colombia, California, Afghanistan and all over the world to consumers such as the second Bush or Bill Clinton. This shows that the notion that government could prevent the shipping of chemical or biological canisters or nuclear bombs the size of suitcases into our cities is a dangerous fantasy of the partisan.
“Understanding the three-pronged problem of terrorism government poses to humanity shows the solution necessary to eliminate terrorism.”
“Ever since government created these weapons, innocent people have lived in danger of another Truman. Some claim the nuclear danger we face comes from rogue governments only. We call this theory, ‘The Rogue Theory of Terrorism,’” Justice said. “We can test this theory against the empirical evidence. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the only available empirical evidence of terrorists nuking cities. The U.S. government has claimed responsibility for the bombings. The Rogue Theory of Terrorism flies in the face of the facts of reality. To make the facts fit the theory, the Rogue Theorist would have to argue that the U.S. government is a rogue government.
"While the partisan of government might fantasize about changing its nature, changing it into a humanitarian institution, we realize that the available empirical evidence indicates the seriousness of the terrorism danger we face.
"While some might not realize that the U.N. government's embargo of Iraq is an example of terrorism, it clearly fits the definition. The U.N. government has murdered more than one million innocent Arabs, mostly children during the Horror, and the U.N. officials imposed their embargo in order to affect Iraqi government policy. Based on the number of people murdered, the U.N. government’s crime against humanity is a more deadly act of terrorism than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
“While these nuclear bombings are a serious hate crime, they murdered less people than the Horror, and they pale in comparison with the Holocaust where the German government murdered over six million Jews. However, the Great Terrorism murdered more people than the crimes of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer or O.J. Simpson. These facts help put in perspective the crime of government and its consequent harm to society.
Max said, “While no ethics philosopher has produced an ethical theory that includes a conclusive theodicy of government, fairness requires giving careful thought to the best ethical arguments for the nuking of babies. Here are the top ten excuses why nuking babies does not imply the U.S. government is a terrorist hate group.
“10. Nuking babies is ethically OK because Hitler would have done the same thing had he gotten the bomb first. And isn’t Hitler the standard of ethical truth?
“9. U.S. government officials were really aiming at the munitions depot at the northeast corner of Nomura St. and Miyadi Ave.
“8. Instead of calling it ‘terrorism,’ government officials prefer to think of it as ‘post-birth abortions.’
“7. An atomic bomb is just government’s way of saying, ‘I love you.’
“6. If the U.S. government were a terrorist hate group, government school teachers would say so. After all, government officials don’t lie.
“5. Any innocent baby who might have died would go directly to heaven; and Christianity says going to heaven is a good thing.
“4. It was perfectly legal, wasn’t it?
“3. Nuking babies was a public-spirited, kind-hearted way of solving the overpopulation problem.
“2. Japanese children made themselves fair game when the kiddies bombed Pearl Harbor with their toy airplanes.
“And the number one excuse why nuking babies does not imply the U.S. government is a terrorist hate group -- 1. At the time, ‘Japs’ was a term of endearment.”
“The partisan of government has a long record of creating sophistic arguments in his morally repugnant attempt to justify his criminal institution. While acknowledging the crimes of government, he might claim that government does good things. It put Yuri Gagarin into space, put Neil Armstrong on the moon and gave us the Volkswagen - but how can that ever justify the murder of innocent people such as Fusa's baby?
Government’s double-effect - does it attract and promote the worst to the top? Or, does it recruit good people and makes them vicious? Or, both?
“One theory is that government attracts the worst and promotes them to the top. Another is that at the beginning of the war, government officials might have had moral concerns about murdering innocent persons, but over wartime they lost their moral sense. Both theories are strong indictments of government – while they are attempts to explain government’s Great Terrorism, they do not exonerate it,” Justice said.
Josephine said, “As Jesus said, ‘Judge a tree by its fruit.’ The mushroom clouds, including the murder of Fujio’s family, are the fruit of government created by the fathers in 1783.”
Roderick said, “Under the Christian war doctrine, the U.S. government gave them justice. I think attacking innocents is considered ethically acceptable if the intention is to attack criminals without harming innocents, and since the U.S. government officials intended to attack criminals, the Christian’s war theory justifies it even though it involved the foreseeable nuking of many innocents.”
Warda said, “I most strongly feel we should be fair to Jesus, an itinerant preacher who started his very own religion, since he can no longer defend himself. I will tell a story of a peace errand in which U.S. government official the second Bush sends the first Bush and Bill Clinton to the Middle East with a peace plan that would satisfy every government in that area, but the plane encounters severe turbulence and some mechanical problems. The pilot shows extraordinary skill in steering the plane to clear skies.
“But, when severe clear air turbulence hits the plane, it crashes. At the pearly gates, Peter informs the first Bush and Clinton that their involvement in the Horror is a problem. Clinton argues that that is part of their job as presidents of the U.S. government.
“Jesus volunteers to go to earth to show a person could be both a successful politician and an ethical person. God agrees with the experiment and sends Jesus to earth and takes away Jesus’ memory so that he doesn’t know he is the Son of God. Jesus joins the air force to prepare for a political career; he makes a killing in real estate and becomes very wealthy in the fishing business. He wins a House seat and then a Senate seat. Tapped for vice-president, his ticket wins. When the president dies of a heart attack, Jesus becomes president.
“It is 1945 and he is informed about the atomic bomb, but does not want to use it. A week later, his closest allies in congress, who have congressional oversight over the bomb, insist on a meeting. They inform him that their conscience will not allow them to remain quiet as more sons return in body bags, and that they had asked the House and Senate officials to be prepared to clear the calendar, without telling them that they will ask for Jesus’ impeachment.
“Jesus agrees to use the bomb, but to spare anyone else possible psychological harm, he puts on his air force uniform and takes off in the Enola Gay. He drops Little Boy on Hiroshima, dives steeply away from the bomb as fast as he can, and 43 seconds later, he sees a painful bright light that is God. When He opens the pearly gates for them, Jesus says, ‘I don’t belong here anymore,’ and walks away.”
Roderick said, “While Jesus would never do that, nor would he engage in the terror bombings of innocent women, men and children in Dresden, Tokyo, London, Hamburg, etc., however, he would drop bombs on Iraqis and Afghans, although that would have the foreseen effect of injuring and killing innocent persons, including babies.”
Carol said, “Since the murder of innocents is part of government’s modus operandi, as the story of the Constitutional convention shows, those who would create, maintain and perpetuate government cannot justly claim innocent ignorance of such crimes.”
The Moral Answer – The ethical force meets the criteria of a correct ethical theory.
“A correct ethical theory must be deontologically justified without regards to the ends. In addition two pragmatic criteria should be met – 1. that the action is likely to produce good results, and 2. that it is within your power,” Justice said.
“Killing the rulers is completely deontologically justified since you are ethically justified in using appropriate force against criminals, taking into account the seriousness of the crime. In view of the seriousness of government, deadly force against the rulers is within the deontologically justified limits,” Justice said.
"The ethical force in case of crimes in progress is the minimum force necessary to stop the criminals, taking into account the seriousness of the crime. In view of the seriousness of government, deadly force is within the deontologically justified limits. In government’s ferocious war against humanity, killing the rulers is necessary for justice,” Justice said.
“Killing the rulers promotes justice, without considering its positive consequences. Killing the rulers is something you can do,” Justice said. “Killing the rulers could have a positive deterrent effect, especially on lower level rulers since they do not receive the prestige, power and welfare that higher level rulers derive from their positions. Hence, the deterrent effect is likely to be enhanced. Since you are deontologically justified in killing all the rulers, you should consider all you can safely kill without being injured or captured and without attacking innocents,” Justice said. “To avoid injustice being committed by the partisans against us, we should avoid giving signs of our loyalty to justice.”
"But when the rulers abandon their criminal activities and submit to justice, then the maximum ethical force is that needed to administer punishment proportionate to their crimes and to ensure full restitution to their victims," Justice said.
"Each person who accepts the responsibility of justice abides by the ethical force. Those who exceed the ethical force are enemies of justice, regardless of what they claim – results are the only basis to decide whether a person is achieving justice and acting consistently with the principles of the ethical force," Justice said.
Roderick said, "Since killing the rulers is terrorism, you are advocating terrorism and since terrorism is incompatible with justice, the New Paradigm is incompatible with justice."
Justice said, "In the New Paradigm, the rulers are criminals and terrorism is defined as attacking innocent persons to affect government. Hence, your claim, 'killing the rulers is terrorism,' is false in the New Paradigm. Your argument uses DOP premises that are refuted in the New Paradigm in your attempt to refute the New Paradigm – a logical fallacy of circularity. Your argument fails what I call, 'the Benson test,' in honor of my old logic professor."
Roderick said, "But you are claiming that Nagasaki and Hiroshima are examples of terrorism in your argument refuting the partisan’s views. Since, the partisan rejects these claims, aren't you also guilty of circularity?"
"I cited Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the empirical test not to argue that these were terrorism and therefore add support to my conclusion, but that the nuking to babies supports my conclusion. My argument is simpler than you suppose. After moving to the New Paradigm, we use the definitions in the New Paradigm, explaining how government puts us in danger of terrorism," Justice said.
Hitler asked, “And what do you say to the families of the rulers after their loved ones are killed?”
Justice said, “Here, since it is important to avoid causing the families, especially their children, any pain in their time of unspeakable grief, the friends of justice must not in any way remind them that these rulers were criminals since that would not be what they would want to hear. Instead, the friends should console them and tell them truthfully that the dead rulers were killed while they were doing, according to their beliefs, the right thing.”
Carol said, “I agree. The friends should avoid taking advantage in any way that would add to the sorrow of the rulers’ innocent children, nor to remind them in any way that the sooner the rulers give up their criminal ways the sooner they will avoid such tragedies for other innocent children.”
Ineffective decision-making maintains the status quo.
Roderick said, "If you do not like what government is doing, you should change it by voting only."
Justice said, "Casting one vote out of millions is a form of ineffective decision making, decision making where your decision is not decisive. To engage in ineffective decision-making is, in practice, to acquiesce to the status quo.”
“Sure, one vote all by itself is a long thin weak reed, but when combined with millions of others, it becomes a bundle tied with string, it becomes a heavy club – powerful enough to make people tremble. Your vote plus ten million other votes would make a difference.”
Justice said, “You have one vote – more if you engage in ballot-stuffing, but you would have to be one hell of a ballot stuffer to cast ten million and one votes.
“Since the probability that your one vote would swing the election is vanishingly small, if, lured by the illusion of power, you cast your vote with the majority, your vote doesn’t change the outcome. If you cast it with the minority, again, it doesn’t matter. It is a form of ineffective decision-making.
“If you seriously believe that each person’s vote should make a difference, the obvious question is how could you change the election process so that, in fact, each person’s vote makes a difference, so that each person has effective decision-making. Until you institute such reforms and I don’t believe you could do that, to engage in ineffective decision-making is, in effect, is to maintain the status quo. Where you only exercise ineffective decision-making, politically you don’t count – you’re a political spectator. Having or casting a vote in no way implies that you abandon your right to justice, and hence, is not a sufficient argument against the ethical force.”
Roderick said, “Numerous organizations such as Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, organizations that oppose land mines and cluster bombs that harm innocent people, and many others have been fighting the crimes of government for a long time – this is the way to solve the problem.”
Josephine said, “In view of the government’s long rap sheet, I do not accept the self-serving claims of these organizations of opposing government’s crimes at face value – after all, they do not adequately repudiate government.”
"I think you have made a compelling case, but I want to present a different theory about how to deal with the crime of government. I believe that the crimes you cited lead to the conclusion that when a ruler commits serious crimes, you have an ethical obligation to kill him," Roderick said. "But not the rulers who haven't committed serious crimes. And when the rulers begin to murder innocents, then we should kill them to stop their criminal activities."
"The ample empirical evidence that Justice has already cited shows government is a serious crime. You are assuming without reason that that is not the case. Since Justice has fully deontologically justified killing the rulers, refuting your view, I want to then consider the consequences of your position,” Carol said. "If we wait for government to begin committing genocides like the Holocaust, the Horror or the Great Terrorism and then try to stop them, it will be too late. Some tried to kill Hitler, but it was too late, and history books tell the whole story, some protested the Horror, but couldn’t prevent it. Some atomic scientists tried to prevent Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but they were too late,” Carol said.
Mary said, “In the TV show, ‘Early Edition’, the hero Gary Hobson receives ‘tomorrow's news today,’ and then goes around preventing some tragedy from happening. Knowing the nature of government we can rationally understand that the ‘Early Edition’ of the twenty-first century says, ‘Government murders millions.’ Of course, unlike the TV show, no Gary Hobson exists in reality who will solve the problem of government in the nick of time. And, we do not know when or where or how or whose baby government will murder next.”
"Through reason, we can understand what the future victims of government want us to do to help. The friends of justice accept a moral duty to achieve nostatism, and prevent these crimes against them. But, failure on our part means millions will be murdered. I don't know about you, but, with my mind, I can hear their pleas for help," Armando said. “We couldn’t help the victims of the Holocaust since we were not here at the time. We can truthfully say, ‘It didn’t happen on our watch.’
“But, we are here now and we know that government is murdering innocents as we speak, and as Justice explained, we can rationally understand that it will murder millions if we hesitate and do nothing,” Armando said. “I don’t know about you, but can we live with ourselves if we allow these crimes to occur on our watch - on our watch?”
Justice said, “While I admire your sentiments, I disagree with your view since bringing anarchy and government out of existence is beyond your capacity. Hence, your view does not fit with the practical criteria of the New Paradigm – that you have effective decision-making, where your decision is decisive. Nostatism is far beyond you capacity to achieve it, although it would result if everyone follows the ethical principles of the New Paradigm. Since, it is beyond your capacity to persuade and motivate everyone to follow the ethical principles, nostatism plays no role in the New Paradigm.”
The moral answer in perspective. The ethical force is a moderate force.
Stalin said, "I am religious and my religion teaches that justice is the province of God, not man. We are never justified in using force against a fellow human being; that would be for us to act like God."
Justice said, "Now we have two extremes - on the one side is government which murders people on a scale otherwise unheard of in all history, and at the other extreme is the view against any use of force for any reason, including justice."
"The ethical force is a moderate view between these extremes. Regardless of religious beliefs, we cannot rationally rely on God for justice. However, I want to congratulate those who completely reject force for rejecting government, but their views are not guided by justice."
Josephine said, “I believe we should promote killing the rulers as a rite of passage for people who want to become politically aware and effective decision makers.
“Killing the rulers without attacking innocents will be difficult, if not impossible. They often surround themselves with innocent human shields. In view of government’s criminal nature and seriousness, we should make all reasonable efforts to protect innocent persons, but that should not stop us from killing the rulers. When they decide to use innocent human shields who are unintentionally injured and killed, the rulers are guilty of their injuries or murders.
“Furthermore, the possibility that their children would be unintentionally injured or killed in the process of killing the rulers – that would be an additional deterrent to the rulers. Using the double-effect doctrine, for ethically legitimate ends of self defense and the defense of other innocent persons, we may ethically commit acts that have the unintended, but foreseen, effects of harming innocents.”
Carol said, “Where is justice for these innocent children in your double effect theory? If these effects on innocents are foreseen, the claim that they are unintended is false. If they are foreseeable, then any claim of innocent ignorance is false. The reason I reject your view grows out of my rejection of the partisan’s war theories – you cannot achieve justice by committing injustice. Blaming the other side may be a psychological defense mechanism, it doesn’t change the fact that if you attack innocents, you are a criminal. This is why the doctrine of double effect is not a principle of justice.”
Josephine said, “The killing of children would be unintended collateral damage in the sense that it is not what I want.”
Carol said, “Then you are using the word ‘unintended’ in a way that is different from the morally relevant way we use the word. Terrorists calling the bombing of children ‘collateral damage’ – that cannot justify it. Since their means involve the murder of children, their means are criminal, regardless of the justness of the cause by itself. Always remember that the ends do not justify the means – the means by themselves must be ethical for an action to be ethical. That is why the doctrine of double effect is not a principle of justice. We don’t murder children because that would be an injustice; those who do such things are enemies of justice – regardless of what they say.”
Josephine said, “We are ethically justified to hold persons and corporations that voluntarily give aid and comfort to government totally responsible for their actions, and to administer justice to them.”
“I agree that the stockholders of corporations that give aid and comfort to government are guilty of serious crime,” Justice said. “But, partisans who merely advocate government, even though their views are morally repugnant, are within free-speech rights to do so and may not ethically be punished, provided they don’t cross the line by acting on their morally evil beliefs.”
"If my argument logically implies such results, then I would accept them, but if it doesn't, then I don't accept them," Justice said.
Carol said, "I think these cases are not equivalent. Some Christians do not engage in criminal activity or join any criminal organizations. While they do pay taxes, they do it under duress like other victims of government. And, some people own guns without committing any crimes against society.
"We need to distinguish ethically legitimate weapons from extreme weapons. Ethically legitimate weapons are (1) weapons that can be used against criminals without committing crimes against innocents, and (2) are owned and used by persons or organizations who do not commit crimes against innocent persons,” Carol said.
Extreme organizations are illegitimate.
"Extreme weapons include nuclear weapons and other indiscriminate weapons, and guns that are owned or used by persons or organizations that engage in criminal activities. Organizations that commit crimes against innocents or own or use extreme weapons are defined as extreme organizations.
"The distinction between legitimate and extreme organizations is based on the distinction between crime and justice," Carol said. "Organizations that use any weapons against innocents are extreme organization, and hence criminal. All extreme organizations are criminal since they clearly threaten innocent persons."
Can a sheep tell the wolves what to do?
Roderick said, “You haven’t said much about what the rulers should do.”
Justice said, “Some take the path of Machiavelli and give advice to the prince, but I speak with the people. Some write editorials in newspapers giving recommendations to the rulers. If these writers really believe that giving their advice to government is the solution, why don’t they e-mail their editorials to it instead of publishing them in the newspapers?
“In fairness to these writers, I should say that journalism professors teach students to emulate the writings of big newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times where the sheep/wolf fallacy mars the editorial pages. In their unsigned editorials, their writers frequently praise or blame government officials, and give them advice, apparently unaware that the typical L.A. Times reader is a sheep, not a wolf. The same fallacy crops up in their by-lined editorials. When Kissinger, a Vietnam War foreign policy official, writes on foreign affairs, giving advice to government officials, I wonder why he can’t send his advice to them. Or, won’t they accept his faxes anymore?”
“I pledge allegiance to justice.”
Carol said, “The leaders of justice accept the ethical duty to promote ethical, educational and cultural ideas that advance justice.”
Carol said, "As I raise the flag of justice, which represents the best of humanity, I ask all who claim loyalty to justice to face the flag and give a moment of silence to think of all the victims of anarchy and government, especially all the babies whom it will murder – if we do nothing – on our watch.”
The author makes no claim that these ideas are original. The author is Egyptian – the racism of the U.S. government was a factor in the writing of this paper.
Published 12-5-2002; Updated 2-20-2003
Copyright © 2002, 2003 The Association of Future Philosophers