Where stops the buck?
Political ·Wednesday April 27, 2011 @ 21:46 EDT (link)
Is it the air force pilot that presses the switch to drop the bomb that is guilty of the "collateral damage" that kills innocent civilians?
Or is it the major that ordered him?
Or the colonel that made the strategic plan?
Or the general that gave him his objectives?
Or the politicians that started the war?
I think we can understand that they all bear the guilt, depending on what they know—if the airman thinks he is acting in self-defense, perhaps he is less guilty, for instance, but not if time after time he has heard of such "collateral damage" taking place (fool me once…). Similarly, when police arrest a person for a victimless "crime"—such as drug use—we can blame the policeman, his sergeant, the captain, and the chief.
We cannot, however blame the inventors or manufacturers of the tools used—the vehicles, the bombs and guns, etc.; they have no guilt in the use of said tools. They initiated no violence; and that is the key question (i.e., the non-aggression principle). It is still initiation of violence if you have someone else do it for you; if the Don orders his henchman to shoot someone, he didn't pull the trigger but he knew the result of his order and chose to take a life.
So far we have talked about the executive branch of the state. There is also culpability in the legislative branch, and to a point the judicial, for both command and give their approval to the use of violence to carry out specific objectives. If a man orders his gang to threaten, extort, or kidnap people driving a particular speed or smoking a herb or harmlessly carrying a weapon—writes it into "law"—or endorses the orders of his predecessors, he is surely as culpable for enforcement following his orders as anyone else in the chain of command. A judge that interprets or approves a law to allow harm to be done to the harmless is in a similar position. This much is obvious.
But voting muddies the waters a little. Does a legislator who votes against—or who would vote to repeal had he sufficient numbers with him—unjust legislation still bear the responsibility for its enforcement? Is he wrong as a participant in the system? Even tacit support is use of violence in favor; but I think he is exonerated if he specifically voted against a bill: we must consider actions first. But what about old laws passed by long-dead or retired legislators that are still in force and used to justify violence against peaceful people? Is it enough that a man (or woman, of course… it all applies to either sex) believably claims he would repeal any measure under concern if he could? Since we care about actions, could we not claim that the actions that made the law in question were by predecessors, and not by any present, and thus they are innocent of them? Yes: we have to blame those that actually passed the bad laws, and consider the actions of those executing them (and judges and juries). An anti-liberty attitude is not in itself an act of harm; and a pro-liberty attitude offers scant succor. There are few men in the United States (what an evil fiction that concept is) congress that have clean hands even by this generous standard; but a few might exist on particular issues (and none when they are measured against the entirety of a free society).
And how about the individual voters that voted for either a legislator that supported said assault on peaceful people, or, on the other hand, voters that voted for the "clean hands" legislator? Some would hold that even taking part in voting is violence; but there are good arguments for "defensive" voting. Are you responsible for the actions of your representative? At such arm's length, when they are acting, for all intents and purposes, independently on such a myriad of issues, usually not. But voting is action; does intent matter? Yes: the man that hits another and robs him is considered worse than the man that, while taking decent care, accidentally causes harm, and it is more likely the victim will forgo retribution (but in both cases should demand to be made whole; accident does not evade that requirement of justice). Both the retributive and restorative aspects of justice may be irrelevant by the same act of knocking someone out cold if it is in the context of an arranged match or in self-defense. Context matters.
The person that, by stealth, takes a wallet from a person is a thief; the person that takes by violence is also a thief (robber); as is the person that orders his gang to rob a specific person or generally ply their trade and profits thereby. If a man's action is to check a box so that he my profit by the extortion of his neighbor, he is no less a thief and a robber. But he might check that same box with a will to vote for the person that will do the least harm to liberty, receive no redistributed wealth, and in no wise take property from another. The circumstances of an act are thus important in whether it is good or evil.
The buck—the responsibility and someday the judgment—rests with the one who threatens or initiates violence against peaceful people; and clean hands to him who forswears it.
