The Right of the People

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Today, the Wisconsin Senate illegally voted through a bill that removes fundamental rights of the working people.

Today, in Michigan, the Senate passed a bill that allows the governor to declare a state of fiscal emergency (state of emergency law? sound familiar?) that allows the state government to dissolve contracts, dissolve unions, even dissolve town governments, and replace them with a unilateral dictator who can be paid an unlimited salary.

Today, unions (human rights) are under attack in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Tennessee, the list goes on.

Today, the fundamental rights of people in this country are under attack.

Today, we must exercise the right of the people to alter or abolish the government. We must do whatever we can, peacefully, to stop what the GOP and their cronies are trying to do. They have shown quite clearly that they will not obey the law. They held their votes tonight illegally. They have violated the state constitution to lock (and weld!) entrances to the capitol, denying constituents entrance.

Today, we must work to recall the republicans that are eligible. We must get out the vote in upcoming elections. We must challenge the illegal actions of the current government in courts of law.

Tomorrow, or the next day, when the Governor signs this bill into law, the public workers of the state of Wisconsin must stage a general strike, and all unions that are able must strike in solidarity, and the people must take to the streets, and we must take our government back.

Aggressive Self-Defense: The Morality of Killing in War

The following was originally written in an ethics class in 2007, and I have made some minor edits. Enjoy.


War is an oft-discussed topic in America right now. People discuss how many deaths there have been on each side, and how the objectives are progressing (or how they are not), and various other details that interest the citizens of a nation at war—for everyone has a vested interest while their country is at war. Of course, another hot topic for debate is the justification for the current war in Iraq. Various politicians, journalists, and celebrities have weighed in on the political, social, and moral justifications for the war. But one debate about war has been simmering for a long time and lies at the heart of past and present anti-war movements: can war be justified at all? Justification for war can come from many angles, but one must eventually examine the core issue—that of the justness of killing in war. A lot of debate has gone into who it is permissible to kill: combatants, non-combatants, guilty persons, innocent bystanders; and there have been many arguments on just how to define those groups of people. Most of all, people have long debated by what principles killing for god or country can be justified morally. None of these justifications, however, provide a satisfactory moral case for just killing in war, and as such, they are not sufficient to justify war itself.



I have chosen two articles with differing views on the morality of killing in war (though they both think it is morally permissible, the justifications and lines drawn are distinct). The first is Robert K. Fullinwider's War and Innocence¹ and the second is Lawrence A. Alexander's Self-Defense and the Killing of Noncombatants², which is a direct reply to Fullinwider. First I will examine Fullinwider's somewhat simpler argument before diving into Alexander's response, which is a more complex model based on Fullinwider's original. After that, I will give my own reasons for which killing should be (and can be) avoided in general.

First, we must set up the thought experiment on which Fullinwider, Alexander, and I are working. This stars the ubiquitous Smith and Jones, and the basic example is the following:

Jones is walking down a street. Smith steps from behind the corner of a nearby building and begins to fire a gun at Jones, with the appearance of deliberate intent to kill Jones. Surrounded by buildings, Jones is afforded no means of escape. Jones, who is carrying a gun himself, shoots at Smith and kills him.³