The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

More about capital punishment

25 June, 2008 · 2 Comments

David Davis

My esteemed LA colleague from Scotland wrote a piece the other day, here. This was, _inter alia_, referring to the issue of capital punishment as ought to be able to be inflicted on unfriendly intruders onto one’s property, none of whom can have one’s interests at heart while they are where they are.

He and I are both iffy about the possibility of the “State” being able to dispense such punichment. History shows that in almost all cases, we are right. This is of course, as everyone will agree, with the absolute exception of Britain and the British Empire and the Anglosphere. Elsewhere, this dispensation has been unsuccessful as the buggers-in-power have never been able to be trusted not to abuse such a delegated right. Or, indeed not to simply usurp that power unilaterally, for various spurious doctrinal Utopian reasons.

However, “polls” show a consistent majority of British people in favour of a return to capital punishment. This is all very well, but they want the wrong solution to the wrong problem, although they think currently that it’s the right solution to the right one.

The problem is that violent and “medium” crimes are out of control because the British socialist state does not want to reduce or control them. It is convenient for it to have a monopoly of force and power of arrest, and for no weapons of any consequence to be held by anyone who cowers in terror, which is most of us – excepting real criminals who don’t mind hurting people in the course of ordinary business.

This is excepting knives, which will be hard to eradicate and ban the possession of, given this British Socialist State’s obsession with forcing us all to eat what my wife calls “unprepared food” – that is to say, stuff that you have to peel and boil (without salt) or even grow, if you are unfortunate enough to be a farmer. Apart from knives, everything else has effetcively been cleared away from all those who most need the gear. I expect that compressed-air-weapons will be next. The number of staged “accidents” involving “boys” is rising.

The State made a contract to propect individuals from harm, crime and loss of property or llife, in return for us surrendering our right to exercise force in the defence of those rights. It has failed, and has signed away our right (delegated to it on our behalf) to kill serious evil-doers. I am therefore not (at this time) in favour of the death penalty returning, unless the reciprocal right to harm or even kill an assailant (vested in an individual) is returned to individuals.

Then, we can properly re-delegate the exercise of that right to a State, in absentia. but we can’t do that, unless we previously have that right ourselves. Discuss!

 

Categories: Blogroll · Celebrities · Crime · DNA · Economics · Education · Firearms · LA Papers · Law · Liberty · MARKET CIVILISATION · Minimal-Statism · News Releases · Practical Coal Mining · Private Supply of Public Goods · Sex · Shooting skills · War · Wireless Tele Vision · drugs · elections · politicians · poor people
Tagged: , , , , , ,

2 responses so far ↓

  • Tony Hollick // 25 June, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Dave:

    It is a cardinal liberal principle that the laws should be upheld with only the absolute necessary minimum of official violence.

    Every European country shows that laws against murder can be upheld without judicial murder.

    Whereas the US shows us that where judicial killing is rampant, so also is murder. Have you ever paused to think about the effect of this on family and friends who are innocent?

    I had thought that the LA stood in defence of “Life, Liberty and Justly-acquired Property.” Has something changed?

    I wouldn’t worry about running out of ways to defend oneself. Even without the Martial Arts, there are thousands of means. Gas cigarette lighters turned up full; chopsticks thrown properly can penetrate a skull; edge-thrown playing cards of the right kind can fly and cut to the bone; Vambraces would be hard to classify as other than protective… and so on.

    For anyone who really worries about this, Martial Arts training is advisable. A good rule is to avoid provoking the assailant. Walk away. Some people radiate fear, rage and aggression, and this potentiates the assailant. In the UK, you are almost totally unlikely to be murdered by someone you don’t know, especially if you avoid boozy pubs at night, and dodgy areas..

    Regards,

    Tony

  • Tristan Mills // 26 June, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    This is of course, as everyone will agree, with the absolute exception of Britain and the British Empire and the Anglosphere.

    Is this serious? Or am I failing to appreciate the irony you intend?

    If its serious then you have a very odd view of the nature of the British state. Given the huge injustices which have been perpetrated by the British state I don’t think you’d need to look far for cases where judicial killing was abused by the state (what about the killing of religious dissidents? Or the killing of ‘cowards’ in WWI?)

Leave a Comment