On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> All of which ignores the best reason for killing convicted murderers:
> that one will never kill again.
Which leads to a ethical paradox regarding the state's murder and it's
public admission of the fact, and the need of society to protect itself
from that act in the future. If I as an individual can not decide to take
anothers life at my whim (ie 'convicted' by individual ethics) how than
can a group of men do it? Can a group of men have a right that as
individuals they do not? No. Ergo, the state has no 'right' (which is
another hole in the logic) to take a life through some process called
'conviction'.
In a democracy state murder has a further ethical breakdown in that it
-forces- people to participate in an act they may not wish to partake of.
In our particular case by forcing individual taxation we break the 1st in
regards the death penalty.
Now, regards 'state right', it is as bereft of logical and ethical backing
as the concept of a corporation being a 'person' and having rights within
a democratic framework.
The positions are actually hold-overs from past despotic
mono-authoritarian world views. They have no place in a democratic
society.
--
____________________________________________________________________
We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
are going to spend the rest of our lives.
Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
