It all comes down to this: Is there an inalienable right to self-defense? If there is, each man has indisputable, inestimable value, value that he may rightly preserve even if the life of another man is forfeit. A man may kill another in lawful self-defense even if the policy preferences of the state would prefer his death. If a right to self-defense actually exists, it is in a very real sense the highest law of the land and all lesser laws must pay it deference. It fundamentally defines the social contract, the nature of the relationship between man and the state.
But if there is no such inalienable right, the entire nature of the social contract is changed. Each man’s worth is measured solely by his utility to the state, and as such the value of his life rides a roller coaster not unlike the stock market: dependent not only upon the preferences of the party in power but upon the whims of its political leaders and the permanent bureaucratic class. The proof of this analysis surrounds us.
Irony abounds in that England, the cradle of the common law and of our doctrine of self-defense, has utterly done away with even a government-condescended privilege to self-preservation. Not only have the English allowed themselves to be virtually stripped of firearms, British politicians have made attempts with varying degrees of success to ban knives. Attempting to protect the self or others from brutal criminal attack can and will lead to lengthy jail sentences in jolly old England — for the victims. Attacking criminals often go free, and often successfully sue their victims for daring to harm them in the process of depriving them of property or their very lives.
In the recent riots in Britain, we see America not far into the future if the progressive worldview is much further advanced. Contemporary England is a nation that spends a great deal of time and energy ostensibly caring for “the people,” yet cares not a whit for the life of any individual, particularly when that life is threatened or taken by a member of a favored political class or victim group, criminals included. This attitude and practice is a foundation of socialism.
At an earlier stage of glorious socialist evolution, we find the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, murdered by cartel gunmen wielding rifles walked across the border in the gunwalker scandal. As reported by Fox News, the family of Terry requested crime victim status in the case of Jamie Avila, charged with purchasing the guns that reportedly killed Terry. Victims with such an obvious and compelling connection to a criminal case are routinely granted this status by prosecutors, but not in a government fundamentally changing itself into a socialist state.
As I posted at PJM:
ReplyDelete" As much as it pains me to defend an obamanoid, I must point out the following...
If the Terry family are granted legal status of victim of the straw-buyer, where does the precedent take us?
If "A" steals a gun, sells it to "B", and it's subsequently sold on to "C, D, E & F" who eventually uses it to shoot "G", is "G" a victim of "A"? This is, in essence, what's being claimed here.
This would set an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent IMHO, *ESPECIALLY* considering that in THIS case "G" was acting in an official .gov capacity at the time of his murder.
Nobody would deny that MORALLY-speaking the Terry family are victims, but I believe the right LEGAL decision was made in this case.
$0.02...
DD"
Excellent article. As always, read the comments! :)
ReplyDeleteHadn't thought of that DD, but certainly a good point. We're suspicious of everything these days, but rightly so and Blue, yes the comments were well worth the time.
ReplyDelete