Let’s imagine that, in a democratic society, they hold a referendum on the question of whether non-libertarians should have the right to hunt libertarians like animals. 95% of the population votes that yes, they should. Now they get the rifle and the hounds and come after you.

Questions: (1) is this law “more legitimate” than a law for hunting-libertarians-like-animals that was passed by a tyrant? (2) When the hunters pound on your door, do you have an obligation to “work through the system rather than outside it” to change the law, or do you have the right to defy it by picking up a gun and defending yourself as best you can?

“I believe in facing the consequences of your actions no matter what they are. You dont want to die? Dont kill people.”

Of course precisely the same argumentative maneuver could be used to defend any kind of tyrannical law whatsoever. For example: “You don’t want to be sent to the gulag? Don’t publish poetry critical of Comrade Stalin.”

You could say “But hey, people have a human right to publish poetry critical government officials. They don’t have a human right to kill other people. So you should have to face whatever consequences the government chooses to impose for the murder, but not for the poetry.” Well, then the issue isn’t The Law; it’s that you think it’s O.K. to punish murderers by killing them, independently of what the law is. You may or may not think that it’s the best policy, or you may even be unsure about it, but you clearly think it’s morally permissible for the government to do it. Otherwise you wouldn’t be acting as if the contents of the law proved anything at all.

As for abortion clinic bombers, it is the fact of the matter, not the motivation that matters. If abortion really were murder, then blowing up clinics to stop it would be perfectly justified. (There are well over 1,000,000 abortions every year in the United States alone. If one honestly believes that abortion is murder then he or she is logically committed to believing that we are living through the worst holocaust in all of human history. And if she or he honestly believed that, what excuse could there possibly be for not trying to end it by any means necessary?)

But since abortion is, in fact, not murder, clinic bombers aren’t right in destroying property or killing people. In fact they are terrorists and murderers.

Whatever the answer to the question is, though, it has to do with the correct account of what human rights people have, not with motivations and certainly not with the contents of the law.

So now we have two conditions, instead of the one being cited earlier:

1. Potential for violence
2. History of violence

But of course (1) and (2) aren’t sufficient for killing somebody either. There are lots of violent sex offenders out there, for example. In fact I could get a list of all the ones that are living near me from the state. Do I have the right to go down the list and slit all their throats? If not, why not? (I suspect there is more risk of them attacking people in their neighborhoods than someone in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison being able to attack much of anyone.)

As for this: “he was still running a racket from prison which was killing more people,” if that were true, then the solution would be to put him back in solitary confinement, not to kill him. However, if you’re referring to the recent San Quentin press release, I’d be interested to know if you have absolutely any evidence at all for the assertion, other than the mere say-so of prison officials.

Not quite. What my argument amounts to is the claim that bare “potentials” aren’t enough to justify the extremely confident claims you are making on behalf of lethal violence. Lots of things are possible. Not all of those possibilities constitute a threat that you can legitimately use violence to respond to.

Just what do you think the probability of a prison break from maximum-security lockdown is? Do you actually think that the risk that a convict in the slammer poses to you is greater than the threat posed to you by random strangers on the street?

“Just because I believe a lot of laws shouldn’t be there doesn’t mean I believe we should ignore them while they are there.”

Why not? What is it about The Law that makes it so important that you should follow it even when it involves violating somebody’s human rights?

I mean, you could say that premeditated deliberate killing of (some kinds of) criminals doesn’t violate human rights. Fine, but then it’s insincere of you to claim that you’re unsure of your feelings about the death penalty. You’re already fine with it, and it being The Law has nothing in particular to do with it.

thickvixen: That’s great he’s come around, after 15 years in jail acting like a thug, and finally realized his wrong doing. That doesn’t erase his crime.

Neither does killing him.

So what’s the point, again?

What contract? I don’t remember signing any contracts. Do you?

Do you think (1) your right to life depends on having made some kind of “contract” with your fellow citizens? If you did, then I could understand why you’d think (2) it’s important to make one up and pretend that it existed even though it never did. But then, I don’t know why you’d believe (1) in the first place.

To be fair, the per curiam opinion in Furman held only that the imposition of the death penalty in the specific cases at hand violated the Eighth Amendment for reasons unstated, because the 5 votes for overturning the death sentences were so deeply divided over the reasons. Two of those five (Brennan and Marshall) did argue that the death penalty as such violated the Eighth Amendment.

It’s too bad they didn’t win out. Not because I have any firm opinion on whether or not the death penalty is permitted by the Constitution (I suspect it isn’t, but I don’t care), but rather because it would have saved 1,000 people’s lives, and that’s more important.

Some people revel in death and glory in destruction. One way to identify them is when they go out of their way to imagine lurid and painful deaths for the target of their Schadenfreude. E.g. going so far as to manufacture a “frying” for someone who will, if mercy is denied, be killed by poisoning rather than electrocution. Because, you know, the electric chair is so much more picturesque.

Well, thank God they only screwed up on small things.

Like slavery.