The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: A Case Law Opinion by Michael O'Shea

FACTS OF THE CASE IN QUESTION:

The four defendants are members of the Speluncean Society, an organization of amateurs interested in the exploration of caves. Early in May of 4299 they, in the company of Roger Whetmore, then also a member of the Society, penetrated into the interior of a limestone cavern of the type found in the Central Plateau of this Commonwealth. While they were in a position remote from the entrance to the cave, a landslide occurred. Heavy boulders fell in such a manner as to block completely the only known opening to the cave. When the men discovered their predicament they settled themselves near the obstructed entrance to wait until a rescue party should remove the detritus that prevented them from leaving their underground prison. On the failure of Whetmore and the defendants to return to their homes, the Secretary of the Society was notified by their families. It appears that the explorers had left indications at the headquarters of the Society concerning the location of the cave they proposed to visit. A rescue party was promptly dispatched to the spot.

The task of rescue proved one of overwhelming difficulty. It was necessary to supplement the forces of the original party by repeated increments of men and machines, which had to be conveyed at great expense to the remote and isolated region in which the cave was located. A huge temporary camp of workmen, engineers, geologists, and other experts was established. The work of removing the obstruction was several times frustrated by fresh landslides. In one of these, ten of the workmen engaged in clearing the entrance were killed. The treasury of the Speluncean Society was soon exhausted in the rescue effort, and the sum of eight hundred thousand frelars, raised partly by popular subscription and partly by legislative grant, was expended before the imprisoned men were rescued. Success was finally achieved on the thirty-second day after the men entered the cave.

Since it was known that the explorers had carried with them only scant provisions, and since it was also known that there was no animal or vegetable matter within the cave on which they might subsist, anxiety was early felt that they might meet death by starvation before ac [original page number 1852] cess to them could be obtained. On the twentieth day of their imprisonment it was learned for the first time that they had taken with them into the cave a portable wireless machine capable of both sending and receiving messages. A similar machine was promptly installed in the rescue camp and oral communication established with the unfortunate men within the mountain. They asked to be informed how long a time would be required to release them. The engineers in charge of the project answered that at least ten days would be required even if no new landslides occurred. The explorers then asked if any physicians were present, and were placed in communication with a committee of medical experts. The imprisoned men described their condition and the rations they had taken with them, and asked for a medical opinion whether they would be likely to live without food for ten days longer. The chairman of the committee of physicians told them that there was little possibility of this. The wireless machine within the cave then remained silent for eight hours.

When communication was re-established the men asked to speak again with the physicians. The chairman of the physicians' committee was placed before the apparatus, and Whetmore, speaking on behalf of himself and the defendants, asked whether they would be able to survive for ten days longer if they consumed the flesh of one of their number. The physicians' chairman reluctantly answered this question in the affirmative. Whetmore asked whether it would be advisable for them to cast lots to determine which of them should be eaten. None of the physicians present was willing to answer the question. Whetmore then asked if there were among the party a judge or other official of the government who would answer this question. None of those attached to the rescue camp was willing to assume the role of advisor in this matter. He then asked if any minister or priest would answer their question, and none was found who would do so. Thereafter no further messages were received from within the cave, and it was assumed (erroneously, it later appeared) that the electric batteries of the explorers' wireless machine had become exhausted. When the imprisoned men were finally released it was learned that on the twenty-third day after their entrance into the cave Whetmore had been killed and eaten by his companions.

From the testimony of the defendants, which was accepted by the jury, it appears that it was Whetmore who first proposed that they might find the nutriment without which survival was impossible in the flesh of one of their own number. It was also Whetmore who first proposed the use of some method of casting lots, calling the attention of the defendants to a pair of dice he happened to have with him. The defendants were at first reluctant to adopt so desperate a procedure, but after the conversations by wireless related above, they finally agreed on the plan proposed by Whetmore. After much discussion of the mathematical problems involved, agreement was finally reached on a method of determining the issue by the use of the dice.

Before the dice were cast, however, Whetmore declared that he withdrew from the arrangement, as he had decided on reflection to wait for another week before embracing an expedient so frightful and odious. The others charged him with a breach of faith and proceeded to cast the dice. When it came Whetmore's turn, the dice were cast for him by one of the defendants, and he was asked to declare any objections he might have to the fairness of the throw. He stated that he had no such objections. The throw went against him, and he was then put to death and eaten by his companions.

After the rescue of the defendants, and after they had completed a stay in a hospital where they underwent a course of treatment for malnutrition and shock, they were indicted for the murder of Roger Whetmore. At the trial, after the testimony had been concluded, the foreman of the jury (a lawyer by profession) inquired of the court whether the jury might not find a special verdict, leaving it to the court to say whether on the facts as found the defendants were guilty. After some discussion, both the Prosecutor and counsel for the defendants indicated their acceptance of this procedure, and it was adopted by the court. In a lengthy special verdict the jury found the facts as I have related them above, and found further that if on these facts the defendants were guilty of the crime charged against them, then they found the defendants guilty. On the basis of this verdict, the trial judge ruled that the defendants were guilty of murdering Roger Whetmore. The judge then sentenced them to be hanged, the law of our Commonwealth permitting him no discretion with respect to the penalty to be imposed. After the release of the jury, its members joined in a communication to the Chief Executive asking that the sentence be commuted to an imprisonment of six months. The trial judge addressed a similar communication to the Chief Executive. As yet no action with respect to these pleas has been taken, as the Chief Executive is apparently awaiting our disposition of this petition of error.

Question: As a presiding judge in the case, how would do you find the defendants?


Judge Michael O'Shea's Opinion:

In rendering my opinion and concurring with a justice presiding on the bench, I first must submit my own personal analysis of this complicated and horrific case. The circumstances surrounding this case are indeed extraordinary and further investigation is required to seek the largest amount of truth and justice granted to the defendants here in Court.

One of the main textual arguments presented by Chief Justice Truepenny is that the statue under scrutiny is not ambiguous and is plainly stated for applying the law rather than interpreting the law. The statue states, “Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.” Truepenny’s argument has much strength which, at face value, can be applied to this case in question. First, the language of the statue applies directly to what the defendants did to Roger Whetmore. There is no question into the matter that the men on trial “willfully” took the life of Whetmore. However, let us reflect on another aspect of this peculiar case. Since it is under the testimony of the defendants that Whetmore was in concurrence with the decision to cast lots to determine his own fate, can this case not be cited within another statue of assisted suicide? If one “willfully” committed an act taking another’s life while the both parties consented to the benefit of such destruction, does this not beg the question of the personal philosophy of the person killed in this tragic case? Could Whetmore have been following the philosophy of utilitarianism, which is derived from obtaining the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people? If we judge that these defendants are in fact murders, does all accountability of Whetmore’s death reside in the defendants alone, or should Whetmore be partly responsible as well, since he initiated the plan and accepted his death? It is my assertion that to merely apply the statue on the grounds of the text is to ignore the basic foundation of why law has become law. If we cannot and should not use prudence when looking at each separate case, our man made laws become not only obsolete but also null and void.

In this regard, I agree with Justice Foster in presenting the argument that the Law of the Commonwealth is at stake if we try to textually apply the law in this case. It is under these circumstances we can push the textual argument aside, and look towards prudence as a form of influence upon the decision.

A more careful examination of the case leads me to another pertinent point. Justice Tatting writes a rebuttal to Justice Foster’s opinion rejecting the belief that these men were not in a “state of law” when they murdered Whetmore, rather a “state of nature.” I beg to differ with Justice Tatting for several reasons. First Tatting asks the question to Foster, when did the defendants actually enter upon the “state of nature”? The “state of nature” is not concurrent with positive law rather it is a part of natural law. It is only human nature which compels us to survive if survival is indeed at stake. While inside the cave, the defendants entered into natural law when they realized that they could not survive unless they ate the flesh of one of their group members. As it is unclear to Tatting why they are in that state, it is perfectly clear to me that the reason they encountered this “state of nature” was because survival was hopeless. This “state of nature” is essential to understand because as Justice Foster says “A man whose life is threatened will repel his aggressor no matter what the law may say.” It is clear here that these defendant’s lives were clearly at stake.Upon using prudence I shall now turn my attention to another reasoning which I can use to adjudicate this tragic case. When a man made law is enacted or enforced, there is always a reason why the law was constructed in the first place. Often times however, a man may break the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. For example, in Commonwealth v. Staymore the defendant was convicted of leaving his car parked for more than two hours when the statue clearly states that that is a crime. However, if we examine the actual reasoning behind the defendant leaving the car parked for more then two hours we stumble across the fact he was prevented from doing so because the streets were obstructed by a political demonstration in which he took no part in. If we can use the same method of reasoning in that case as in this case then these defendants are not murderers in the slightest degree because the law shall not apply to extraordinary circumstances such as this situation.

Although I am reluctant to rule based upon “judicial activism” I must follow common sense in which many of these justices, such as Justice Keen and Truepenny have grossly overlooked. The mere fact that the justices have to hear about this case and the mere fact that they have to write an opinion on the case is brought into the light by these four men’s survival in the cave. If it were the case that all five men had died of starvation, a slow and miserable death, then would we not wish that at least four of the men inside that cave could still be alive today? It is my declaration that we should be celebrating the fact that these men survived a grueling wait in a cave for more then 30 days, and we should let them move on with their lives as they have already suffered enough. If the men had not acted in the destruction of one man’s life, we would be talking today amongst ourselves the tragic case of the five men who died in a cave from starvation. One must seriously reflect on this question and ask themselves if they truly would rather have one human dead or five humans dead, for this case seeks no other option. As a firm believer in the right to life, these men have only done what is necessary to survive where death seemed inevitable. The strong analogy posed by Justice Foster seems to be extremely telling in itself. Justice Foster explains that if a society is willing to risk the lives of ten individuals to save five, is it safe to say that we can risk one individual for the sake of four other individuals? The answer should be in the affirmative.

Justice Tatting brings in an analogy which is not apt to the situation at hand. Since we can use prudence as a form of reasoning, Tatting asserts that our logic, to remain consistent, must find a man innocent if he steals bread from a store because he is starving to death. This analogy has many problems. First, the dynamics behind a man who is free to other resources and the outside world is significantly different than men who have no other options or resources readily available. Since the man who stole bread at the store could just as easily go to a church service for food, or apply for welfare, or food stamps, shows us that him resorting to stealing was not a last and dire option. To reason with prudence when breaking the law, the defendant must expound that all other options were exhausted and that there was no possible way he could have survived had he not robbed the store for bread. For the typical thief I can safely assume that in Tatting’s analogy not all other options were sought to bring about comfort to this hungry man, therefore the act of stealing is wrong by nature. The defendants on trial today not only exhausted every means possible, but they were in such dire need for food that they ate one of their friends for mere survival. This fact in itself can show you that, since these men had no prior record to cannibalism, they were desperate for survival.

The question of self-defense can also play a vital role in making a decision based upon the circumstances in the case. Justice Keen presents the argument that since Whetmore never threatened the lives of the defendants then one cannot claim they were acting in self-defense. However, I disagree with Keen and find that Justice Foster is right on this issue. When one conforms to a law, there is always a purpose or motive behind why a law becomes law. If killing in self-defense was murder then it could never fully operate in a deterrent manner because it is human nature that we choose life over death. It is self-defense because without his death, the defendants would not be here in court today. The mere fact that Whetmore agreed to his death wouldn’t classify it as murder, but more so along the grounds of assisted suicide.

Although this is a tragic and devastating case, I must admit that I am not prepared to allow more death to ensue because our positive law was not in effect within their need for survival in the realms of natural law. I must rule that these defendants are innocent of any and all murder crimes brought against them today.

Part 2 of "Learn Some History! series"- Finding James Madison

A long time ago, in an era far, far away, there lived a man of unprecedented levels of competence, versatility, virtue, and yes, brilliance. Often regarded as the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison was considered the leading political theorist during his time on Earth; a time when our country was developing into the benevolent republic to which it hath become. Madison indulged himself into any book he could muster into his feeble hands (he weighed roughly 100 pounds!) and he constantly was researching history for practical theories of governance. His acumen transcended party affiliation and he remained America’s most principled Founding Father who fundamentally understood the system of government he wished to execute. As I gaze, dazed and confused, at the Congress of today, and the “great” politicians of today, I constantly ask myself a very unsatisfying question: Where the hell is the James Madison of today? Is it so beyond the realm of possibility that a man of great intentions, convictions, and standards who reads and understands political theory be in existence in the political arena of American politics today?

Forget James Madison for a moment, and just observe the devolution of political minds throughout our nation’s history. We once had a government being run by a crew consisting of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Henry, Jay, Adams, and Washington (although he was most notably known for his ability to govern and compromise). We are now in the midst of a government run by the ilk of Bush, Frist, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Cheney, etc. The very thought of this comparison leaves me sickened. As cynical as I may sound, I do have hope for our beloved republic and the optimism in me believes that this great nation may produce another James Madison to run the country.

Part 1 of "Learn Some History! series"- Napoleon: Reclamation of the Throne

Napoleon Bonaparte was an early 19th century military commander of the French armed forces who later became Emperor of France from 1804 to 1814. The final days of Napoleon’s reign were rather dismal, as he solemnly observed the monumental empire he had fought for begin to fall into the hands of other European nations. As Napoleon abdicated from the throne, he was exiled to the island of Elba in April of 1814. However, less than a year later, Napoleon had once again reclaimed the crown as Emperor of France. How did Napoleon justify his return to power and reclamation of the throne in France? There were three major factors in which Napoleon justified his reclamation of the throne. First, the friendly and unsatisfying terms of the Treaty of Fontainebleau provided him the eventual means of coming back as the agreements within the treaty were not upheld. Secondly, the location of Elba, and the lack of oversight on the island paved the way for his escape. Thirdly, the environment in France at that time allowed for not only Napoleon’s return, but also allowed for his acceptance and consent of the people.

On April 11th, 1814, Napoleon had formally abdicated from the throne as Emperor of France. The Allied European nations, Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, signed the Treaty of Fontainebleau which ultimately set the stipulations for the fate of Napoleon. The treaty stated that Napoleon was to be exiled to the island of Elba where he would attain the title of Emperor of Elba, he would receive two million francs annually, paid by the French government, and his wife, Marie-Louise, would receive the Duchy of Parma, a territory in Italy. The terms of the treaty itself were undoubtedly particularly generous to a man who had conquered half of Europe through force. Yet, the French and the other Allies reluctantly agreed to the proposal.

Although Napoleon was depressed because of the abdication from his country, he requested in a letter written to then Commandant of the island of Elba, Count Dalesme, to “Announce this new order of things to the inhabitants, and tell them I have chosen the island for my residence because I know the kindness of their character and the excellence of their climate.” This is rather interesting because it shows that Napoleon was at least a little concerned about the consent of the people for his rule. Also, it portrays Napoleon as someone who took his title seriously, and that he was still capable of being an emperor in another country. These two components from this letter provide insight as to how Napoleon viewed his role in foreign affairs and how he viewed the consent of the people as something essential for his authority to be legitimately in power. His justification for coming back to power would never have been imposed on the French people had the French army not consented to Napoleon’s return.

As Napoleon remained in exile, the Bourbons, who were now ruling France under King Louis XVIII, were not following through on their promise of compensating him two million francs. One main reason as to why Napoleon was to be granted this money was because he left behind over 160 million francs of property and real estate in France. Even though Napoleon had brought 4 million francs to the island, his funds were slowly depleting, and he was unable to pay for his expensive guard which was protecting him from Polish assassins. This not only angered Napoleon, but it also prevented him from sustaining a healthy state, as the money was not a luxury, but a necessity. As Napoleon demanded the money from the French government, the Bourbons proposed that Napoleon be relocated to the Azores, an island located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This was something Napoleon would not stand for, so this played a very intricate part in his beginnings of plotting to escape the island of Elba and return to France. As we can see, Napoleon justifies part of his return for mere survival.

Another source of extreme frustration with the terms of the treaty and the final decisions that were made came from Napoleon’s wife, Marie-Louise, and her decision to not join Napoleon on the island in exile. When Napoleon learned that his wife would not be joining him because she had wished not to go against her father’s wishes, he was devastated. While Napoleon was on Elba, he received news that his wife had married an Austrian general named Count Adam Albrecht von Neipperg, and Marie-Louise eventually bore two of his children, the first in 1815.9 Here were two very distinct reasons which forced Napoleon to return to the mainland: he needed money for survival, and he wanted revenge for his personal hurt. One could only imagine if these two reasons had been dealt with in Napoleon’s favor, that is to say if he were paid the money from the Bourbons and Marie-Louise had joined him in exile, he might not have sought a leaving the island to return to France.

The Treaty of Fontainebleau was somewhat generous to Napoleon in two other aspects. The first is the actual location of where he was put, and the second is the specifications for his actual oversight and containment. The location of Elba was not too distant from the southern border of France as it was situated in the Mediterranean Sea roughly 240 miles from France. This is a crucial aspect to his actual means of getting to France because it physically enabled Napoleon to reach the island before he could be intercepted by British fleets. Had the Treaty of Fontainebleau been dictated by any of the other Alliance members, such as Britain for example, the terms would have been such that Napoleon would never have practical means of even coming back to France.

The main allied country that was set in charge of Napoleon’s oversight on the island of Elba was the British. British Foreign Secretary Lord Castlereagh sent Sir Neil Campbell to accompany Napoleon to Elba where he assured everyone that Napoleon would not escape. In fact, the briefing Sir Neil Campbell received from Lord Castlereagh prior to his departure from France with Napoleon stated “Conduct yourself, as far as the circumstances will permit, with every proper respect and attention to Napoleon, to whose secure asylum in that island it is the wish of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent to afford every facility and protection.” Campbell recognized that these orders were vague and while living with Napoleon in July of 1814 he asked for more specific orders. The British responded that Campbell was a “British resident in Elba without assuming any further official character.” Campbell had in fact been absent ten days prior to Napoleon’s escape, and for the British and many others it was a clear “dereliction of duty.” Much of the blame for Napoleon’s escape was placed upon Campbell, yet nowhere in the initial briefing or specific orders did it say he was to remain on the island and guard Napoleon every day of the week. In fact, Campbell had left the island for a medical consultation, and the following day Napoleon ordered the ship Inconstant to be fixed for a voyage. The lack of oversight and location of Elba made the possibility of return, despite the justifications, very conceivable.

The mitigating factors in Europe before Napoleon’s flight from Elba also played an important role in his decision to return. The Quadruple Alliance between the four powers that ousted Napoleon were starting to subtly quarrel with one another, and dissension was no the horizon. Within six months of these four powers signing the Treaty of Chaumont, which essentially said these four powers would ally for 20 years in case France ever got too powerful, they had formed alliances within the alliance. As Russia and Prussia wished to expand their territories, Austria, Britain, and even France became increasingly suspicious of their new prospects for more power. The tensions were so hostile that Austria, Britain and France signed a secret directed against Russia and Prussia. As Napoleon observed these events taking shape he realized that the Allies might be disconnected enough for him to regain power and continue his conquest through Europe.

The primary factor for Napoleon’s reclamation of the throne was not necessarily the reasons to accomplish his goal, or even the dynamics of his actual escape; rather it was the atmosphere within France that allowed for Napoleon to actually regain the throne and lead with consent of the people. After Napoleon abdicated from the throne, the allied powers allowed for the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty and Louis XVIII was placed as the ruling King. The Bourbons had ruled France for nearly 200 years before they were overthrown by the French Revolution of 1792. The people of France did not take a liking to the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty in France. King Louis XVIII rejected one of the essential ideals of the Revolution which was the “idea of a contract between sovereign and the people.” He believed a king should rule by divinity, nothing more. To top it off, Louis XVIII changed the national flag from the tri-color blue, red and white flag of the Revolution to the white flag with yellow lilies. The legitimacy of the Bourbons was not recognized by the people simply because they were forced back to power under the guns of the allied powers. The French people saw this transformation of power to ignore the foundation and ideals of the French Revolution, something which Napoleon had represented symbolically. Napoleon was able to take back France because the people believed the Bourbons were too reactionary and were going to send France back into feudal darkness. The Official Report of Napoleon’s Return from the Island of Elba published in the Moniteur on May 23rd, asserts that the main justification for Napoleon returning to power was because Napoleon was informed “that the French people have lost all their rights…and his throne could guarantee the rights of the nation.”

Although Louis XVIII did proclaim a “constitutional monarch” the situation was extremely bleak for most soldiers and peasants. In fact, thousands of military men who had been disbanded after Napoleon’s abdication were in the midst of monarchical corruption and they faced no jobs and no future. The King of France also engaged in nepotism by placing inexperienced officers in the higher ranks, and demoting veteran officers. The massive unemployment among the lower classes and peasantry produced a climate of disdain for the legitimacy of the Bourbon Restoration and paved the way for Napoleon to receive consent from the people.

When Napoleon had finally escaped, he landed on the southern coast of France in Golf Juan with roughly 1,000 soldiers. As he marched through various cities of France on his way to Paris, the people of France rallied around him praising his return and consenting to his “liberation” of France. Upon learning of Napoleon’s return Louis XVIII ordered the military to arrest Napoleon and remain loyal to the state. As the French army sent by Louis XVIII met Napoleon and his soldiers in Grenoble, Napoleon proclaimed “Soldiers! If there is one among you who wishes to kill his emperor, he can do so. Here I am”; to which the military responded “vive l’emperour!” The massive disdain amongst the disheartened military towards Louis XVIII was quickly turned into action as the military and peasants, facing massive unemployment, decided to act upon their anger and side with their old emperor who embodied the ideals of the Revolution. Napoleon was a general that cared for his other generals and wished to gain support and legitimacy from them before them before he reclaimed the throne. Evidence of this can further be seen in Napoleon’s will, as he granted five families over 100,000 francs because their loved one was a general that perished under Napoleon’s reign.

As word reached Paris of Napoleon’s return and rally towards the city, a series of anti-Bourbon riots ensued. Napoleon soon reached Paris and took back the city “without a shot being fired or any blood spilled.” On March 1st, 1815 Napoleon made a speech to the soldiers and peasants in France. Napoleon made a speech explaining to them that he has returned and now order and what the soldiers want will be acknowledged and kept. He also cleverly used phrases that appealed to the soldiers like “Soldiers! In my exile I have heard your voice.” Napoleon further proclaims “Put on the tricolor cockade; you wore it in our great days…then will you be able to claim the credit of your deeds.” Napoleon also made other proclamations asserting that “the throne of the bourbons was illegitimate.” The main theme behind his speech was to rally the troops and establish a military foundation with the troops and reveal the fact that he is back and that France will regain its prominence in Europe. It was produced to solidify the doubts in soldiers and generals heads that Napoleon was going to restore France with order and pride.
One must also keep in mind that the theory of nationalism was a new concept and the people of France were adhering to the belief of French superiority. As Napoleon pandered to the idea of nationalism in the speech, the people and soldiers rallied around his cries who then eventually consented to his authority. This speech marked the essence of Napoleon’s brilliance to appeal to the masses and ultimately led to his reclamation of the throne. By September 1st of 1815 he was able to gather a trained army of 800,000 men and his legitimacy was enormously greater than Louis XVIII.

Although Napoleon would soon be ousted and sent to exile once again by the Allied powers, his return and escape from Elba was a great accomplishment nonetheless. Each of these dynamics are essential for understanding the major reasons as to how Napoleon came back as emperor. Napoleon’s exile to Elba was not enough to stop this overly ambitious military genius from restoring himself back to power. With the French government unable to fulfill parts of Treaty of Fontainebleau, Napoleon’s personal vendettas, the location of Elba, the lack of supervision on the island itself, and the surrounding ambiance of discontent among the French people for the Bourbon Restoration, Napoleon was able to escape from Elba and reclaim his throne and his legitimacy as rightful emperor of France.

Upon further Investigation...Marxism and Capitalism

Capitalism and Marxism are two very distinct theories and societal philosophies that have one very common thread; they are both inherently built around a system of class structure and the acquiring of capital. From the inception of these competing philosophies these two theories have shaped politics, philosophy, history, economics, social structures, and systems of governance in more ways than man can even fathom. In this regard I will define the terms were are speaking with, attempt to explain the origins of each theory, explore the differing tenets and precepts of these two belief systems, distinguish between the social and economic variations of the two conjectures, while examining the morality of each position, and finally provide criticisms of both philosophies. (Although explaining Marxism is a critique of capitalism)

It would be remiss of me to begin without defining both capitalism and Marxism in the broadest sense of terms, seeing as though there are schools of thought on both sides that project a certain magnitude to the actual belief systems. In Capitalism by David McCord Wright, capitalism is defined as "a system in which on average, much the greater portion of economic life, and particularly of net new investment, is carried on by private units under the conditions of active and substantially free competition, and avowedly, at least, under the incentive of a hope for profit." In short, capitalism presupposes that in an open society the ends are achieved by the individuals, or rather by voluntary organizations of individuals. Marxism is the reaction to such a system of capitalism, and advocates revolution of the proletariat in order to overthrow the capitalistic machinery of the state. Both systems have extreme complexities and components and each a reference point in history.

Where and when did capitalism begin? The earliest forms of capitalism were widely known as "mercantilism", which could be defined as the distribution of goods in order to realize a profit. This practice gradually evolved into an economic theory called capitalism.

Although the word itself did not come into existence until socialists coined it in the mid-nineteenth century, the principles of capitalism were first published in The National Gain, authored by Finnish parliamentarian Anders Chydenius in 1765, 11 years prior to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. However, Adam Smith is widely known as the founder of capitalism today. Smith used the phrase "economic individualism" rather than capitalism to describe this philosophy. Capitalism was seen as "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty" and it began under the idea that the state was built solely to protect individual rights and freedoms. The ingenious of Smith was that he had already written a rationale for the economic system of capitalism well before the industrial revolution had even begun. Smith had uncovered a set of principles which accepted man as the "self-starter" that was good for any productive society.

The application of capitalism became present after the American Revolution commenced as the founders created a government built ideally for the economic system of capitalism. The government was there merely to protect the natural rights of man which were, "life, liberty, and property." After Smith died in 1790, the industrial revolution quickly swept America and Great Britain by storm, and the seeds of the early unfettered capitalism were taking shape. It was not until Karl Marx in 1848, with the publishing of Communist Manifesto that society had not seen such a serious and radical philosophical critique of capitalism.

As stated before, Marxism was a philosophical and economic system which was promoted as a reaction to the unfettered capitalism of the early 19th century. Writing in London in 1848 Marx published the Communist Manifesto which served as the rallying cry and justifications as to why revolution of the proletariat should soon commence. Before this publication, French intellectuals were criticizing capitalism and advocating socialism, which goes to show many that the radical ideas against the system were flourishing. The drive for Marx to publish his ideas was heavily influenced by his deep disdain for the "anarchic" economy which capitalism perpetuates, and his desire to initiate a "planned economy" for the state.

The history of Marxism does not translate into the wide misnomer of the history of communism; the system of government which failed in the USSR and China. Rather one must understand that Marxism was modified heavily by these two systems and arguably was distorted to the extremity of creating authoritarian monsters such as Stalin, Kruschev or Mao. The strictest interpretation of Marxism has really never been implemented thus there is no real empirical evidence to use to dispute Marxism as a theory of governance.

So what are the basic tenets of the economic faction of these two philosophies? The basic foundation for the economic theory of capitalism is that the accumulation of the means of production is placed into the hands of a few individuals. This accumulated wealth is called "capital" and the people who possess the capital are "capitalists." The next step in capitalism involves the productive labor of the worker to be transferred into wage labor. That is to say that the value the worker creates will not be for the product they are making, but for the wages they are given by the capitalist. The division of labor then enables capitalism to increase productivity as it lowers the skill and wages of the worker. As an economic theory, capitalism embraces the free markets and the freedom of the capitalist to attain a profit by arguing that the worker has no inherent risk involved in losing money. The capitalist takes a risk with his money; therefore he is entitled to make the profit that is owed to him.

Another support system for capitalism lies within the social philosophy and morality of such a theory. Wilhelm Ropke argues that the logic of capitalism is an intrinsically peaceful exchange between two consenting parties and because of this it is an exchange which exerts two moral parties. Within the free market, which capitalism embraces, people are able to put their ideas into practice and start a business if they wish, and it is up to the market if they succeed or fail. It promotes individual liberty and self-autonomy as the cornerstone of human existence. Capitalism offers the individual worker to attain high status in society and pursue their own goals and dreams with what they choose to make of their individual liberty. Robert Tracinski points out that "the fundamental characteristics that make capitalism practical, its respect for the freedom of the mind and for the sanctity of the individual, are also profound moral ideals."

Marxism as an economic theory takes upon a rather different approach. To fully understand the theory of Marxism, it is required that we first must understand Marx’s view of history. Marx views history as dialectical. That is to say that Marx views history as a "process of change that took place through the coexistence of two contradictory sides, their conflict and their fusion into a new category." Capitalism was a synthesis of the bourgeois fighting against the thesis of feudalism and for the antithesis of mercantilism.

Marxism argues that the value of a product being produced is nothing less than the amount of labor necessary for it to be manufactured. The capitalist in turn only pays the worker a wage and thus accumulates the surplus value, or profit, of what his laborer, according to Marx, has rightfully produced. This is the crux and main problem Marx has with capitalism; the class stratification produces an inequality amongst men and the bourgeois class is able to profit from the proletariat. For Marx, the accumulation of capital for some will often cause accumulation of poverty for many. Marx’s says the "accumulation at one pole is simultaneously accumulation of misery, work torture, slavery, ignorance, brutalization, and moral degeneracy at the other."

According to Marxism, the evolution of capitalism would lead to a dismal state of unemployment and exploitation and a severe economic crisis would ensue. Since Marx was writing Das Kapital in London, he envisioned the most advanced capitalist society to be the first system to be taken over by the proletariat. In fact, Marx’s ideal place for revolution was no other place but London. The finality of Marxism was to have a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that "was to centralize all instruments of production into the hands of the state" that would then increase productivity at a rapid rate. The endgame of Marxism is a kind of social and economic utopian ideal between the state and the workers producing the goods in harmony. As a result Marxism hopes to create a classless society in which the doctor gets paid the same as the janitor.

The interesting point about Marxism is that Marx’s himself never attempts to argue that capitalism is unjust. In fact, he even attempts to distance his scientific socialism with the utopian socialists of the day who argued that capitalism was unjust. Marx did however, use phrases such as "exploitation of the proletariat" which does have a connotative meaning of someone wronging someone else of their humanity. Yet Marx does acknowledge that "exchange is by no means an injustice." Thus many Marxists have argued that capitalism is simply not the best way for humankind to live, implying that humanity could be better served through a collective ownership that does not diminish freedom or abuse the men of society. The practice of such a society attempts to summon a utopian society where the synchronization of mankind is perfectly in tune and the eradication of poverty, unemployment, racism, sexism, and pollution will be the end result.

Since I have already outlined a Marxist critique of capitalism, I will now address the many criticisms of Marxism itself. One criticism of Marxism says that the problem of Marxism’s idea of history is that in thinks in terms of the material world and not the world of ideas, which ultimately "disvalues the idea of democracy." Using this criticism, many say that Marxism has given rise to totalitarian states. It is interesting to note that the implementation of Marxism by Lenin in the 1917 Bolshevik revolution was merely one interpretation of Marxism. That is to say that Lenin ultimately viewed the application of Marxism as the "dictatorial seizure of power by an exclusively revolutionary vanguard party of the proletariat, and taking the bourgeoisie’s and aristocracy’s property by expropriation, the denial of their political power and rights, and subsequently their death." Although it is clear that Marx would not have supported this, it does say something about the interpretation of such philosophy, and that maybe the practical application of Marxism is something which is unattainable.

If we examine Marxism from the Communist Manifesto’s perspective, we clearly see that Marx gives rather specific instructions as to how the dictator of the proletariat should govern the state. He says "the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, to win the battle for democracy." This is somewhat troubling for Lenin however. Lenin believes that since democracy was a state form, and Marx believed in the abolition of the state then democracy must perish as well. Thus a dictatorship of the proletariat commenced and soon gave rise to even more malcontent for the people then the system below. For example, the interpretation of Marxist thought has led to a restriction on personal freedom, expression of opinion, the free exchange of ideas only to achieve a utopian end of pure communism. With communism giving rise to dictators restricting these liberties, the application of Marxist thought is often seen as giving rise to a different form of dictatorship and oppression.

There is also a very interesting critique of the way in which Marx views history. If one were to apply the theory of dialectics to Marxism, then we would thus assume that the Hegelian theory of history was the thesis and the Marxist theory of history was its antithesis. But if the Hegelian theory views history as a change in ideas, and Marx argues that he is ignoring class struggle and economic order, then where is the synthesis between these two theories? If Marx truly support his own theory of dialectics then all evolving theories and change must be a synthesis of two other forms, therefore this could negate him from even believing that pure Marxism is correct.

In conclusion, capitalism and Marxism are philosophies which presuppose different tenets of human nature and from this they draw their differing conclusions as to how society should be run. Although they have much that is different, it is true to say that they have much in common with one another. Through the histories of each of these two concepts and the fundamental purposes for which they were composed, highlights, arguably, the two most influential philosophies of our day. Capitalism and Marxism are two theories that have stood the test of time in the relevance of intellectual discussion.

Socrates Was a Badass

The Trial and Death of Socrates authored by the “other great philosopher” Plato, has come under my recent inspection and inquiry after taking about a year off from my initial encounter with the book. Comprised of four distinct dialogues, Socrates protrudes the utmost courage and superiority within his grandiose dialectical method of examination accompanied by his interlocutors. In modern day language, by all accounts and understanding of the English idiom, Socrates would be considered no less than a swanky badass. A badass with words, with phrases, with quips and barbs, and most importantly, with convincing Plato that nobody ever prevailed against any of his contentions thus continually leaving the futile interlocutor walking away head down, disgusted and shamed.

The first and second dialogues represent little importance to me than do the third and fourth dialogues. The first being Euthyphro, a dialogue in which Socrates plays upon one of his most infamous techniques in plastering the raconteur of the passage, Euthyphro, by invoking his Socratic irony. In the end, like all Hollywood movies, the good guy, Socrates, eventually makes the bad guy look like a fool. The second dialogue called The Apology, consisting of Socrates playing ignorant once again, casts all pretensions to human knowledge into uncertainty. As the wisest of them all, Socrates proclaims that he is posited better off the less he thinks he knows. This way he continues to foster discourse amongst truth and will not stop attaining knowledge as an indignant pretentious prick would. (Yes, I am talking about myself)

Now, onto the reason I decided to write this less than amusing and less than interesting article. Hopefully, you have not fallen asleep at the title. The third dialogue, called Crito and starring Crito, is probably the most thought-provoking dialogue ever to be written by Plato. (There are a total of 32 Socratic dialogues) The entire dialogue takes place in Socrates’ prison cell, where he awaits his Athenian court death sentence. Crito comes upon Socrates cell and informs him that he has arranged for Socrates to escape from the prison and has planned his exile in a distant city away from Athens. After a plethora of arguments trying to convince Socrates to leave, Socrates seems to be unconvinced of Crito’s polemics and further questions if what Crito asserts is the right thing to do.

Enter badass. Socrates charges into his elenchus and leaves Crito dumbfounded and without words in the end. Socrates says that he must stay to carry out the state’s sentence, because ultimately he has consented to the rules of the state, and leaving now because the rules inconvenience him, would be a dereliction of duty. He poses the absolutely brilliant question to Crito which is: “Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals?" In other words, if individual citizens decide to obey the laws of the city based solely on their private circumstances, then there can be no city and laws at all. Although he issues three other arguments in this discussion, this question is a tough question to answer if you support Crito’s proposition. Crito then concedes without further questioning Socrates’ supremacy and Socrates remains awaiting his fate.

With Socrates accepting his fate, we now turn to his final conversations before his death in Phaedo. Here we can examine empirical evidence that remains consistent with my intellectually charged thesis that Socrates was indeed, nothing less than a badass. It is in this dialogue that we find out that Socrates was not repining death whatsoever. In fact, he even goes so far to declare that since death is merely the separation of the body and soul, that every philosopher, at Death’s doorstep, should gladly accept his fate. In other words, since the philosopher holds true the idea that the body corrupts the soul and that the body merely infringes upon the learning and knowledge of the soul, that the separation will free the mind and give the philosopher what he always has hoped to have. Socrates accepts death on the premise that the body has been a hindrance to his knowledge search thus death will enable him to further himself with merely his soul.

A man who plays ignorance to defeat his cohorts in a Columbo style charade; a man who dabbles in innocuous fun by claiming to know nothing at all yet spreading more wisdom than Michael Moore spreads lies; a man who altruistically accepts death on the principle of keeping the state intact; and a man who willingly accepts death because his body has impeded himself from acquiring total reason and virtue, is nothing other than a mother fucking badass. Thank you, now go read some Nietzsche.

Illegal Immigrants Have No Rights, comprende?

The other day, while watching the fair and balanced Fox News channel, an immigrant (presumably illegal) was giving an interview with a Fox News reporter in Los Angeles. The man vehemently insisted that illegal immigrants should have all the same rights as American citizens because of a two reasons. First, as he rattled off his apparent minimal knowledge of American history, he argued that when the Pilgrims came to America, the Native Americans never asked for legal documentation. Second, he said that illegal immigrants should have all the rights of American citizens because after all, they just come here to work. The media and left-wing politicians today do not seem to understand that ‘illegal’ should be in front of ‘immigrant rights’ as they attempt to equalize law-abiders and criminals.

Now, sane-minded American citizens quickly realize the idiocy behind these two justifications. The first fails to recognize that there was in fact no institutionalized government or system of laws within North America when the Puritans came to this land. The Puritans furthermore did not reap health care and education benefits from the ‘tax-paying’ Native Americans. The second fails to acknowledge the sovereign right of a nation-state to deny citizenship to an illegal alien. It also usurps the Constitution, gives way to enhanced terrorist activity, and not to mention costs billions of taxpayers dollars. That’s right folks, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, illegal immigrants cost our government 10.4 billion dollars every year. Hardworking American citizens’ are funding illegals education and health care because they are criminals who choose not to come here legally and know that they will not have to pay taxes by doing so.

So again, what is all this talk about illegal immigrant rights? Is the term not contradictory in and of itself? If I commit an illegal act in society, many of my rights will be stripped of me because I have broken the ‘social contract’ with the state. But wait a second; these illegal immigrants are not even part of our state to begin with. They are entitled to nothing in this country. Besides the fundamental human rights all individuals should be entitled to, which is essentially ‘life’, illegal immigrants are entitled to absolutely nothing according to the supreme law of the land, or the Constitution. Last I checked, the 14th Amendment dictates what is granted and guaranteed to the citizens of this great country, not to people who knowingly break a federal law by coming to America illegally.

The protests calling for ‘immigrants rights’ and ‘amnesty’ are not only absurd, but they are also a great way for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to arrest many of the illegal aliens in this country. When the government knows large numbers of illegal immigrants will be allocated into one rally in a major city, it is the federal government’s job to go out to the rally and ask these protestors for their legal documents. Besides, the illegal immigrants have absolutely no right to be protesting any American piece of legislation to begin with as they are clearly not American citizens.

So what is the conclusion again of illegal immigrant’s rights in America? Aside from human dignity and respect of human rights, they should have nothing. Not a job, not education, not health care, and certainly not false documents. Businesses that hire illegal aliens should have sanctions and a heavy fine placed upon them. The illegal immigrants should be grateful that the US government is considering passing a guest worker program to allow these people to get on a path towards citizenship and work legally in America. But make no mistake about it, we are talking about people who broke US federal law; they deserve nothing from America.

Treatise on Individual Means and Progress

To which man came to exist there followed upon subsistence for freedom. Divinity in its greatest formation cannot subsist within a world that masks freedom in the existentialist construct of mere existence. Placing the will of the individual separate and away from the guise of the statist realm persists as a logical configuration of a shadowing obstacle to equality. However, this equality is idealistic and dysfunctional altogether. How then can one move forward amongst the broken pillars of intervention when the purpose of survival is predicated amongst the decree of incentive and self-preservation? Denying the philosophy of coercion and compulsory organization of men gives rational cause to the individual means and progress to which therefore mankind is emancipated.

The death of such progress is not originated from an anterior attack; rather the individual means of freedom dies from a statist regime in power no longer believing in independence or autonomy. Personal responsibility is the foregone conclusion in a healthy state of mind and of politics, thus perpetuating a desire for reason and exalted reveries.

Statesmanship is the institution we so highly esteem our own right and self government, yet hardly are we to place judgment on corruption. We propose the supreme law of the land to hold certain instinctual liberations presupposed, yet the philosophy of government has disavowed this very natural order. The statist realm confounds to sway the masses between self-righteous endeavors of redistribution or egocentric petty minded greed. Do not adhere to this falsehood. It is worth not a pittance of intellectual stimulation to swallow the undesirable outlook of emotion over reason; of mendacity over veracity; of simplicity over complexity; of irrationality over rationality.

Justice seeks to be done only for those who wish to seek justice. If the coercive doctrines of these deranged tactics seek to be capitulated, then the justice shall be done to the individuals of the state. Vigilant thinking and gravitational obstacles place a man to drive for the individual means of progress by creating a state free of subjugation; economically and philosophically. Rational cause must usurp emotion; to which it is done the tenets of the individual means and progress will thrive.

Problem with Marxism

Capitalism and Marxism are two very distinct theories and societal philosophies that have one very common thread; they both are inherently built around a system of class structure and the acquiring of capital. In capitalism, the means of production are owned by the capitalist, or CEO, in today’s world. The workers who create value for that CEO are compensated duly for their work, even if they are not getting paid for their full value. The justification for the worker not getting paid full value is that there is an intrinsic risk involved for the CEO. If he invests 5 million dollars into a company, and at the end of the year he only gets 3 million back, then he has lost 2 million dollars investing in that company. The worker still gets paid, and this is why he will never be fully compensated for his work as a laborer; there is no risk for him at all.
Marxism believes that since the worker creates the value of the product, that he should then in turn own the means of production. But I have trouble accepting his premise that ONLY the worker creates the value. If a car has all the proper components for it to run, with the exception of the engine, it cannot run. Just as a plot of land has all the utilities and arability to produce crops, the value cannot be produced unless a laborer plows the fields and creates the value, similar to an engine in a car. However, if the car has a flat tire, or the land is not arable, then the value cannot be produced, and even with an engine the car will not run well. Hence, the potentiality of a foreseen and good investment, or car, is, at its core, a skill. Although it isn’t a direct production of value, it is an indirect method of producing the value.

The Critique and Analysis of my 'Confronting Empire' course

The false predication divulged throughout the class of “Confronting Empire” has circulated a wide misnomer of the actual meaning of ‘empire.’ From Winthrop to Horsley, this course has brought forth a very original and confounding hypothesis which essentially suggests that America has grown into its “imperial” place in history due to the seeds of “Christianity” and its divine mission for greatness. From Chris Hedges illuminating the malignant precepts of America’s imperial condition and its addiction to war, to David Harvey demonstrating the inevitable failure of the capitalist neo-liberal policies abroad, the conclusion of this course was reached before it began. That is to say not once in this course was their ever a goal to disseminate the growing need for the US policy abroad as it stands today. An empire, by nature, suggests negative connotations where one political entity dominates another political entity; a belief I do not hold about the United States. I believe fundamentally that we are in fact a global superpower, with vast influence beyond our borders.

The moral structure of America can be traced back to when our country was first set in motion by the Puritans and the utopist ideals of John Winthrop. Yet what is the current state of affairs within America in terms of religion? While the current politicians in the White House actively seek to endorse and utilize religion as grounds for many domestic policies, I see no distinction in the framework of Bush’s foreign policies that have led me to believe we are embarking on a religious crusade in the Middle East. Even as our “national project” sets its course to determine the fate of some countries, is it not something which can be looked upon as altruistic, even if it does fail?

My own understanding of liberal values falls in accordance with where our society is currently; a free market, representative democracy, while not perfect, yet exactly what our Constitution outlined our state to become. Who and when did people decide that the American situation looked bleak? Through optimism and a restriction on laissez-faire economics, we overcame the Great Depression, which at the time was spoken about as if it was the end of our republic. Today, Harvey is espousing this same nonsense, even when our country is in the process of attaining more and more amounts of wealth and higher percentages of GDP than any other country in the world (with possible exception of China). The alternative of this national project laid forth by Barbara Epstein is a nonviolent resistance to US policies and advocated for “peace, non-intervention, ecological preservation, feminism, and gay and lesbian rights.” She is described as being “driven by a vision of an ecologically balanced, nonviolent, egalitarian society, [that] engaged in political action through affinity groups, made decisions by consensus, and practiced mass civil disobedience.”

Yet what are these resistant groups, like Epstein’s, essentially driving for? They are in essence driving a selfish political agenda, just as the politicians in power strive for their agendas, to shape or mold the world in their own moral clarity. In Epstein’s case, she seems to be confused that we do not live in a socialist country and that if she wanted to change anything, she would only be successful were she to overthrow the government in a violent manner. Tocqueville so eloquently distinguishes between these two philosophical systems as he states “while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Whether or not you agree with the national project’s continuing goals and aspirations for promoting liberal values here and abroad, we all must agree that it is in fact a machine and the only way to take it down is by force. Non-violent resistance, as Professor Block proclaimed, is in fact almost completely hopeless.

The moral lens which we propose for other countries to view through as well is a worthy attainable mission. The messianic and pretentious accusations of America’s liberal ideals proliferated throughout the globe is stale and unfounded. How has Bush justified Iraq based upon religious grounds? The basis of war was on moral superiority and a notion of a threat deemed imminent to the American people, which had garnered support and effective analysis from CIA Director George Tenet who claimed they did have WMDs. We will not go around setting up democracies in other parts of the world, with Wolfowitz out of the administration, Rumsfield wielding no power, and Bush leaving office in 2008 (not to suggest Bush is a neo-conservative, just that he is heavily surrounded and influenced by them in his cabinet).

Tocqueville argues in “Democracy in America” that the US will eventually face a democratic despotism somewhere down the road. He also goes on to say “It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild.” It seems as though Tocqueville defines the very heart of what democracy is as the reason it will one day become despotic in rule over the people. He says “Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd…” His analysis seems to overlook one major aspect of our Constitution; that no where in the supreme law of the land does it say ‘democracy,’ as we were founded upon a republic. In Federalist Paper #10 Madison proclaims “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." If you juxtapose both of these statements it is clearly evident that they are strikingly similar.

So how then can Tocqueville critique something which was never created and in fact dismissed by our creators themselves? The fact of the matter is that our country is not headed towards ‘democratic despotism.’ If we are merely sheep, as Tocqueville seems to conclude, then why do politicians seek re-election by pandering to the masses and taking positions due to public opinion polls? The evolution of our democracy has indeed generated a form of ‘imperial presidency’, yet I have a difficult time accepting that the American people do not dictate the policies of this country, in some form or another. Our moral liberalist standards are cohesive with a responsive government which establishes the will of the people and the notion of legitimacy through fair and equal elections.

The model in which I have continued to argue is the sustaining status quo. America is not in an oppressed and oblivious state in my mind. Horsley’s Jesus and Empire confounds me in the deepest way. He’s main argument is that many Americans today think of us as the new Rome. According to Horsley this should be unsettling to Christians because Jesus was among those who the Roman Empire subdued. He traces the roots of America back to our founding and equates the covenantal principles with something that could be in accordance with Jesus’ covenant, and that we are steering from our path of social justice. What still bewilders me is his need for equating Rome to America. They are not even remotely the same, besides the fact that they are superpowers of their time. Horsley writes, “Since September 11, 2001, however, we can no longer rest comfortably with such domesticated pictures of Jesus. We can no longer ignore the impact of Western imperialism on subordinated people and the ways in which peoples whose lives have been invaded sometimes react." How can he say “subordinated people?” America does not acquire lands for the sole purpose of riches and territorial superiority. America does not subjugate and colonize overseas to enslave masses and culture. America does not shun away at a disaster half way around the world because it’s not in our interests; we give humanitarian aid, medicines, supplies, progress, technology, and higher economic standards of living with countries that open barriers of trade with us.

One major reason why we are not like Rome can be seen in mere statistics. America spends roughly 4% of it’s GDP on military expenditures. The Roman Empire spent close to 25% on its military dominance. America does not have a culture which embraces the propagation effort of our ‘imperialism’ rather you have the antithetical sentiment coming from writers, actors, and musicians of our day. According to Horsley, just because the US has military bases stationed in another land for control of potential foreign threats, that we somehow are “imperializing” the nation we have a mere presence within. We do not dictate the policy of Japan, like Rome did to Macedonia. We do not rule Germany like Rome ruled Judea. It is beyond irresponsible then to compare and contrast these two empires without first, defining empire, and then distinguishing the natural differences.

The Little Democracy That Never Could

For the past three years of my life, I have given my unwavering support for the Bush Administration in conducting its war in Iraq, which essentially was waged for national security purposes. Yet, a revelation today would lead me to not only become disenfranchised with the current situation, but also lead me to face a sad fact of reality in which I believe I was wrong for supporting democracy in the Middle East. Hear me loud and clear liberals, this is not a confession about Bush’s misguided foreign policy, but more of a cultural awareness which I believe many of my conservative colleagues should take note of in today’s political climate of Iraq.

What has American foreign policy been advocating for the last two and a half years since its tenure in Iraq? It has been promoting a stable, democratic Iraq which holds true the freedoms and human rights of all people; a republican form of government that espouses ideals and principles of the civilized world. Unfortunately, this is not the reality of the situation. Iraq recently adopted and ratified a national constitution which has all the proper tenets of a theocracy. The dissolution of Saddam has created an Islamic state, something which the US does not endorse.

The definition of a theocracy from wikipedia is thus: “a form of government in which a religion or faith plays the dominant role. Properly speaking, it refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere.” Article II of the Iraqi Constitution says the following: “First: Islam is the official religion of the state and it is a fundamental source of legislation. A) No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.” The clear evidence suggests to all around the world that Iraq is now an official theocracy.

How can a country pride itself on democratic ideals and religious tolerance, when the Constitution itself proclaims that the legislature can use the Koran to dictate laws, and furthermore the Federal Supreme Court will now be able to adjudicate cases under Islam? Freedom of religious practices and an established state religion cannot ever be juxtaposed within a constitution. Those two components are fundamentally a paradox. Is the Supreme Court in Iraq going to mandate that a Christian woman living in Kirkuk must cover her face in public because it’s a law under the state’s official religion of Islam? Religious freedom and theocracy does not coincide, period.

The cultural variation within this region is so drastically different, that a republican form of government, one in which the US prides itself on, is virtually unattainable. Unfortunately for Bush, his idealistic vision and commendable, altruistic foreign policy objectives will ultimately fail. This is not to say that the initial justifications of the war were unwarranted; only it is an observation and analysis of the results of intervention in Iraq. Is the world better off without Saddam? Of course it is. Yet why are we hearing President Bush use rhetoric such as “democracy” when in all reality Iraq is now the direct antithesis of such a form of government.

What is the future of Iraq? The benign precepts of Islam have been soaked into the Constitution, thus creating a natural rift between those of Islamic faith and those who are not of Islamic faith. If this schism is not sorted out in the courts, or in the will of the legislature, then I fear the ultimate price for Iraq; a 21st century civil war between the Kurds and the Shiites. This hostility can only grow deeper unless this constitution is amended in some form or another.

Theocracy in Iraq may be an evolutionary method of a form of hybrid form of democracy, but at its elemental core, it is not. A democracy was never, not once, achievable with the religious distinctions in the region; at least a democracy which adhered to Western principles. America now unfortunately may have created exactly what it wished to eliminate; a growing desire for legislating Islam in a state which was once secular. The future indeed looks grim for Iraq, and all the rest of the world can do is sit back and watch it unfold.

Who is Mike O'Shea?

Since coming to DePaul University four years ago, my political beliefs have always been in accordance to basic conservative principles. I would characterize myself as a ‘philosophical conservative,’ which could be described as a hybrid form of classical liberalism. As a freshman in college, I was very much attached to the party lines of the Republican platform, yet soon discovered that ideology was more pure, and less hypocritical than party politics. For instance, I tend to be turned off by gotcha games in the political arena. I am more interested in assessing problems, debating, and writing or finding solutions to those problems; most solutions have nothing to do with government in my mind.

I am currently the Editor-In-Chief of a new conservative newspaper at DePaul entitled the Lincoln Park Statesman. The transformation of ideology from thought to paper has broadened my conservative prose and has enhanced my arguments three-fold. I am a firm believer that research is the essential foundation for coming to acknowledge what you espouse politically. It is my assertion that if you are uninformed about a particular subject area, you not only should refrain from speaking upon that subject, but you also have failed your duty as an American citizen to participate in the fostering of debate; the indispensable groundwork for a democracy to remain intact.

There are a number of different issues I feel relatively passionate about. First and foremost is my undeniable belief in personal responsibility. The bedrock of conservatism is founded upon this principle. Government intervention is almost never a good thing. It is my belief that the more a government adopts social programs or policies that regulate an entire industry, that the more you will see personal responsibility and individual freedom diminish significantly. Besides the fact that virtually all governmental programs are ineffective, the philosophy behind such intervention is faulty at its core. Why should government be able to take money out of my pocket and give it to someone who made poor, inadequate decisions early in life that ultimately disabled them from getting a job and making an honest living? The answer is that government should not have that authority. Government is here because as Madison claimed, men are not angels. Government is alive to protect its citizens from foreign threats and to protect individual liberty.

Another doctrine I hold very close to my heart is the belief in a free trading world. Countries with a liberalized market show higher economic standards of living than do countries with protectionist policies that uphold hindering trade barriers. To put a restriction on someone from selling goods in a land where they didn’t manufacture the product or grow the commodity strips man away from the primordial aspects of survival. Besides the fact that it’s the “law,” what grounds does someone have to disable or restrict one to sell goods and services in a foreign land?

I like to think I have a wide range of political knowledge, yet I am always eager and willing to learn more. I have an intense interest in history, as it is my other major, particularly presidential history. I truly believe that we are living in a moment in time that will never be forgotten. The litmus test for the success of the current implementation of freedom and democracy around the world will ultimately be in fact history.

A quick run-down of my stance, a philosophical conservative, on current issues today: pro-Iraqi War (a strong defense is vital to a Republic which is under attack by not only terrorism, but by an ideology of Islamic-Fundamentalism), strongly against Affirmative Action, pro-gun rights (fully support the 2nd Amendment), support fiscal discipline (something which the Republicans and Bush are making a disgrace of currently), against welfare and social programs alike, support a laissez-faire economic policy, strong supporter of free trade and against trade barriers, somewhat “against” the Patriot Act (although the need for protection of liberty was essential at the time it was ratified, whether it needs to be renewed is a different story, still no documented cases of abuse have come from investigations), support strong immigration reform, pro-life, support privatization of Social Security, strong belief in a supreme being (yet should be absent of government rule), support a Palestinian state, support a flat tax (current code is too complicated and absurd), against the idea of hate crimes, support capital punishment, support school vouchers, and against gay marriage (pro-gay rights and benefits).

I do not have a set political structure in life, but I do have a strong belief in personal responsibility and individual autonomy. These two ideas are the basis for my analysis of issues in today’s world, and are my guide to developing a solution to each of the issues. Hopefully this post will help you understand what I am all about.

DePaul Conservative Alliance backstabbed by 'concerned students' organization

On Wednesday February 1st, the DePaul Conservative Alliance, along with SGA and the ‘concerned students’ at DePaul, held a town hall forum which revolved around the controversial affirmative action bake sale. The forum, as told to the DCA, was to consist of a debate around free speech, where a DCA student was to be presenting its right to have the bake sale, while the ‘concerned students’ presented their case as to why they have the right to override the Constitution and shut down the bake sale, because it offended some DePaul students.

Naturally, the DCA was extremely skeptical of the impartiality of the forum when we received word two days before the event that the ‘concerned students’ had reached out to three DePaul professors, Valerie Johnson, Howard Lindsey, and Sumi Chou to serve as “expert references” on the panel discussion. An hour before the event began I met with the ‘concerned students’ and expressed my discontent with them being on the panel for fear that they would impose their own ideology and bias against the DCA. The representatives for the ‘concerned students’ assured me, to my face, that these professors would be in the audience just providing their “expertise” on questions from the students.

Still cynical at the situation, the DCA went ahead with the forum after agreeing to the “experts” as being impartial and not on the panel. Yet the ‘concerned students’ backstabbed the DCA. Not only were they on the panel, but they also opened up the forum speaking out against our actions. The professors they had got were unanimously against the bake sale itself, and furthermore were in complete agreement that the discriminatory policy of affirmative action was justified. Valerie Johnson, from the Political Science Department, called me “troubled” and “ignorant” during this debacle. Most of the audience, with the exception of the DCA members, was extremely disrespectful throughout the forum, as they were laughing, bellowing, yelling, and making a mockery of the “intellectual” forum on free speech.

The forum was supposed to be on free speech, yet I guess Prof. Lindsey didn’t get the memo, or the ‘concerned students’ backstabbed us. His opening remarks, which the professors were not supposed to get anyways, were about how Martin Luther King Jr. wanted affirmative action, and how he is the product of such a disastrous policy, and why it’s good for America today. Prof. Johnson echoed the same illogical rhetoric. Professor Chou came wandering in late, which shows her dedication to the actual forum, and began to spout nonsense of how the bake sale is not considered “free speech.” It seems to me that Professor Chou would be better suited living under Stalin in the 1940s with her idea of censorship and total oppression of thought. But what can you expect from DePaul’s professors, being a liberal who is against free speech is a pre-requisite at this school. Maybe Chou will actually attempt to read the 1st Amendment before she adds her two cents of blatant inanity to the next forum.

The DCA was ambushed by the ‘concerned students’ “expert panel” and for that they should look at themselves as mere cowards. To be fair, we have already received an apology from one of the representatives of the ‘concerned students’ but we have yet to receive anything from the individual who actually reached out to these professors. The DCA will continue to spark political discourse on campus by encouraging free speech on campus. You can always count on us for leading the charge to reform this left-wing institution.

Constitutionalism Part III: The Case for African Constitutionalism

As the West actively seeks to endorse and impose constitutions in countries around the globe, there lies a fundamental element of debate for application of a constitution in certain areas of the world. As the State Department notes, the biggest export of America is their constitution around the world; setting up free liberal democracies here and there while granting primitive tribal societies a sense of ‘universal rule of law.’ The African constitutional experience is far different than the European experience. Through my research however, I have concluded that African countries, although different from European countries, should still adopt some form of a constitution in order to 1) establish a framework for development and progress, through the rule of law, internally and externally, 2) improve the well-being of the state, and 3) appeal to the global community.

One of the primary differences between European constitutions and African constitutions, opponents of adopting constitutions in Africa argue, is that the consent of the people or the pull of ethnicity is far greater in Africa than it is in Europe. While this may have some truth to it, the argument about this being a main reason for not adopting a constitution is faulty. The fact of the matter is that the US is the most diverse country, culturally and religiously, yet our Constitution remains in tact. The initial stages of implementation are difficult, yes, and blood may be spilled, but for the long haul the co-existence of a diverse population and a constitution is very practical indeed. The Europeans underwent an easier time adopting it, since they are all usually of one nationality, but this fact alone should not impede African countries from establishing one for itself.

Opponents of my theory also argue that when constitutions are imposed, patrimonialism, which is essentially authoritarianism, exists in the African hierarchy and the rule of law is lost. But what can we say about this absence of the rule of law? Could it be a fracture on the actual constitutional-making process? If the state created an institution which provided checks and balances with a strong independent judiciary, the executive branch could not abuse his power. The framework thus created, enables these countries to develop a sense of national unity and national strength which is facilitated by grossing a GDP and accepting globalization as a form of enlightenment and necessity. The abuse of power can be curbed by reforming the process to a different way than the Europeans; perhaps a more gradual process. Internally they succeed and externally they can open trade with other nations as well.

What of the notion that constitutions contribute to the well-being of the state? Author Yash Ghai states "…neither the substance nor the ideology of the rule of law is necessary to governments and their economic systems in Africa…" Yet more often than not, we find that the countries with unrestricted trade and constitutional governments enjoy higher economic standards of living. This is to say that most of the European countries that parted from communism enjoy great economic success because of the established supreme law of the land. Without this symbolic and literal document, the country is always up for a power struggle and the well-being of the state is decreased. In other words, Ghai fails to mention that without an economic system or rule of law, that sheer anarchy and absolute freedom will ensue, thus giving rise to violence, subjugation, and ultimately self-destruction.

Although opponents make an interesting case for Africa’s self-reliant status apart from the rise of constitutionalism, they fundamentally fail to understand that in a growing, more interconnected world, it’s essential to have an economic system and a political ideology driving the formation of a country. Without a constitution, the well-being of the state, the internal and external structure, and the global community will all be neglected with severe consequences in return.

Constitutionalism Part II: Global Constitutionalism Erodes Sovereignty

Global constitutionalism is the belief that world governments will defer to the rules and principles enshrined in a worldly constitution and uphold the rule of law within that constitution. Throughout history, constitutionalism has changed in its meaning, authority, and its function of legitimacy. The three different waves of the constitutional process are significantly different than the recent wave of a global constitutional structure, or a New World Order. This new phase is undoubtedly more dangerous and more complicated than the previous phases before it.

The first wave of constitutionalism occurred from the 1700s up until the 1850s. This was the stage which established constitutions as a force and product of a law abiding society. Virtually all of these constitutions were established after a bloody revolution breaking away from a monarchy. Examples range from the United States in 1776 to France which had about 5 revolutions from 1793 to 1848. These constitutions were based upon limited government authority, religious freedom, and were products of the Enlightenment. The global constitutionalism setting is probably most similar to this stage. If in fact there were to be an adopted global constitution, it must remain from being too long and should be pithy; precisely what constitutions during this time frame were based upon. Also, global constitutionalism is brought forth because of the sense of distrust in nation-state actors; much like the constitutions in this era had distrust in government.

The second wave of constitutionalism was between the years of the end of WWII till the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. This stage was focused on nation-states becoming self-determining. From Japan and Germany after WWII to Spain and Portugal in the 1970s this stage focused on political rights and conceptual structures such as popular sovereignty. Global constitutionalism was making a rise in this era as well, with the formation of the UN, the establishment of NATO, and the creation of GATT (present day WTO). These institutions further developed the global states as one uniform body embracing subtle rules of law across the globe. The peril of this global constitutionalism was slowly eroding some sovereignty from many countries participating in this process.

The third wave of constitutionalism occurred after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. A rise of independent, free of USSR controlled states like Hungary, Poland, East Germany and Romania surfaced in this era, and constitutions were created to ensure freedom for all citizens. The iron grip of the Soviet bloc was destroyed and globally the US was left standing in a great position as the world’s number sole global superpower. These ex-communist countries wanted socio-economic rights in their constitutions, something which global constitutionalism will take no part in.

The formulation of a global constitution is extremely dangerous. Not only will the sovereignty be tarnished in each country, but the philosophical aspect of utopia is simply unattainable. How can a world, which embraces and sustains millions of different ideologies, embrace a structure that impedes freedom and culture in the very aspect it is hoping to achieve? Unfortunately, this is the next phase in constitutionalism; a phase that potentially, could leave a stigma on many freedoms we love and are guaranteed on Earth.

Constitutionalism Part I: The Progression of Constitutionalism

What is constitutionalism? The broad answer of that question is merely the limitation of government by law. Yet the main tenets of constitutionalism are very different in each of the sovereign countries which instituted a constitution in the different historic constitutional periods. The tenets of constitutionalism are essential for defining a national sense of unity and adopting principles which are to guide that country for a sustainable period of time. Constitutionalism is absolutely an ideology which has been modified and tweaked for centuries, and is even entering a new phase of a theoretical configuration amongst the global community.

The initial ideology of what a constitution consisted of was influenced heavily by European philosophers like Locke and Montesquieu. The founding fathers of America based the tents of constitutionalism in our Preamble: “to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for a common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” These tenets were a reaction to the breaking away of a British monarchy and the establishment of an independent state. The ideology of constitutionalism in this era was nothing more than granting liberties and protecting property rights. It had a very limited sense of government intervention.

Through time however, as mankind progresses and develops more knowledge, the tenets of constitutionalism vastly changed by the mid 20th century. The beginning of the second stage came with the defeat of Japan and Germany in WWII. The Japanese constitution was ratified within days by an imposed General MacArthur. The basic tenets of their constitution were trust within the government and the formation of a liberal parliamentary democracy. An excerpt from the Japanese constitution shows the trust in authority, “government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people.” The ideology of government being beneficial was leaking even into our country at this time as well, with the passage of legislation which granted a vast amount of money to welfare and government job programs (New Deal). The ideology of constitution was no longer a distrust in government and protection of property rights. It was now blossoming into something beyond that, which political rights and universal suffrage played a big part in.

After the fall of communism, constitutions were bringing the government into many everyday aspects of their lives, because of the ‘status quo’ and how many citizens enjoyed free health care and education under communist rule. The constitution-making process involved a lot more details then did previous transitions of constitutionalism before that. The ideology had once again shifted. No longer did the political rights and univeral suffrage suffice, now governments, like Romania’s and Hungary’s, were to be controlling much of the economy. It was a constitution with a foundation upon socialist principles.

The transformation of constitutionalism in a historical context is quite stunning. As man pushed further into progress and development, the initial ideology of constitutions became somewhat obsolete, although it is worth noting that the root of constitutionalism still lies within that initial stage. As the ideology develops, we can infer that the tenets of constitutionalism will only seek to become modified in the future. This tranformation may soon be implemented within the global construct, endangering every transitional ideology before it.

Cry Me A River Mohhamed

The recent indignation coming from the Muslim world is innately showing the global community how the Middle East population ultimately views their culture in the world; which is, unfortunately, a selfish, and inconsiderate, naïve view that is normatively silent in hate against humanity, except when it is placed upon them in the form of a cartoon. This ire is in lieu of the recent political cartoon published in a Danish newspaper, which essentially alleged that the Prophet Mohamed was a terrorist. It pictured him wearing a turban that had a lit fuse at the top of the garment.

All hell has now broken loose in the Middle East. From top Muslim clerics calling for beheadings, to militant groups sending out threats to citizens of Denmark and Norway, and to even masked gunmen raiding the European Union office in the Gaza City, the Muslim community has gone bonkers. After threatening the Danish and Norwegian citizens, one militant leader said, "We are calling on the citizens of the two countries to take this threat seriously because our cells are ready to implement this all over Gaza.”

Wow! They wish to implement terror; beheadings, destruction, chaos, and fear into the citizens of a country that had one newspaper’s political cartoonist satirically embrace the Prophet Mohamed as a terrorist. What can be said of this? Well now that the world is watching a lot of true revelations have come forth about the Muslim society.

First, this in fact proves how egotistical the leaders and the people in that region really are. Why do they spark huge protests and express complete discontent about a satirically driven cartoon published in a paper about their religious leader, when they never spark huge protests or express discontent of the terrorism that is going on around the world? Where was this incitement and zeal after 9/11 happened, or after the Madrid bombings, or after the London bombings? There was no outrage from the leaders or violent protests in the street calling for the beheadings of the terrorists. There was a dead, ominous silence coming from the Middle East that was ironically deafening. The fact that the Muslim world thinks anyone is going to give a damn how they react to a political cartoon, shows us that they are in desperate need of fulfilling their narcissistic aims at believing in their righteous superiority of “sensitivity” or “political correctness.” The deeper concern is that the Muslim world has no respect or regard for calling for the complete annihilation of Israel, or comparing Sharon to Hitler in Muslim newspapers. The double standard is rooted in ethnocentricity and a fundamental Islamic belief that the world would be better served without the nation of Israel. It’s uncanny that the Muslim community can become this upset over a cartoon but not over the massacre of innocent civilians in other countries or the other demoralizations of other religions coming from their very own region.

If there is any justification for persecution of ANY citizenship or religion, it would have had to come about after 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on their own soil on 9/11. Did anyone in the Bush administration actively say that we need to reprimand or take violent action against the Muslim community since it was carried out by them? No. In fact Bush flew some Muslims out of the country for their own safety, because of some radical morons who already were racist against Muslims before the attack even happened. No one was calling for violence to a citizen of Middle Eastern descent. And this was over the biggest terrorist attack in history where innocent people were actually murdered in large numbers. No one was physically hurt from this cartoon, but now the Muslim leaders wish to hurt people as a result of it being published.

Can you even imagine this scenario in reverse? Can you imagine what would happen if a major Muslim paper published the Pope in some terrible demeaning manner? Here’s what would happen. The Christian Right and the religious extremists would be up in arms about the insensitivity of the Muslim newspaper. They would advocate for a boycott and maybe speak out against the actual publication itself. But what if the Christian Right began to assail the Muslim community in general? What if high Catholic bishops called for the beheading of the people who did it, or called for militant groups to storm any Muslim related shop in the US and hold them up at gunpoint in protest of what some newspaper organization published? The liberals in this country would be on every talk radio and TV show denouncing these actions so frequently, that all the planned parenthoods, environmental protests, and welfare programs would shut down for a week. So where are the liberals condemning this reaction in the Middle East now?

The fact is this; the Muslim community must understand that if they want their fury to be respected, then they must be consistent in 1) condemning the terrorist attacks with just as much enthusiasm and 2) condemning the same ethnocentric treatment they harm the Jewish people with. Also, the freedom of speech must be protected even if it does offend people to the greatest extent. The selfishness within the Muslim population is overwhelming and the inconsideration they demonstrate around the world is scarily expectable.

Kant vs. Mill: A Philosophical Debate

The recent discussion amongst the death penalty poses a very deep psychological question amongst the essence and impetus of human nature. The debate can be categorized into two realms: the Kantian logic of categorical imperatives (a deontologist position) against a Millian logic of utilitarianism (a consequentionalist posititon).

Let's frame the abstract amongst both arguments first, and then one can find where they fit into these ethical normative practices.

The Kantian Logic

The deontologist position is somewhat a little more complicated than the consequentionalist position. Basically Kant believes in a theory of categorical imperatives. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, and is both required and justified as an end in itself. Kant bases his decision making on a universal maxim, something that does not qualify as an end in itself. The act itself MUST have moral content if it is carried out solely with regard to a sense of moral duty.

An example of Kantian ethics:

Imagine Nazi Germany for a moment. Imagine the Gustapo searching German quarters for violations against the proteting Jews, in a time when they were banished to concentration camps. Imagine the Gustapo coming to a house where Jews were living and questioned the Jews if they were in fact Jews or German citizens. Kant would argue that it is wrong to rob yourself of the moral DUTY of the universal maxim and pretend that you are in fact German. Basically, the result of the decision, by Kantian logic would be that these people are to be wisked away to concentration camps. But it is of no dilemma for Kant. You have maintained a sense of moral obligation to adhere to the categorical imperative of truth and reason. Kant concluded that the expected consequences of an act are themselves morally neutral, and therefore irrelevant to moral deliberation. The only objective basis for moral value would be the rationality of the Good Will, expressed in recognition of MORAL duty.

The Millian Logic

The consequentionalist position is in fact very simple. It's maxim, under the doctrine of utilitarianism, is to achieve the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. To Mill, no matter how cruel of the actual act that is involved, no matter what extent of grotesque and dirty nature of the act, that as long as the end result is better for more people than the act is inherently justified. To Mill, the universal maxim was happiness. He believed the intrinsic moral value of life was for everyone to attain happiness and pleasure (there are different types of pleasures but thats for another discussion).

An example of Millian ethics:

In the same exact situation described above, Mill would have no problem lying to the Gustapo for a greater amount of happiness for humankind (i.e the Jews). It doesn't matter that they abondoned a sense of "moral duty", the bottom line to Mill is that they achieved what human nature should always be in search of: the greates amount of good for the greatest number of people.

By using this example, many people see that they would never adhere to Kantian logic; it seems ridiculous and in fact morally obtrusive itself. However let's take another example where one may completely agree with Kant, BASED on the same principles.

Imagine the entire city of Chicago has received word that the water system is completely diluted with a bacteria and soon a plague develops amongst the entire city...as it spreads through airborne. Now imagine if you will, for sake of the hypothetical point, that the government was able to contain Chicago in a large dome so to stop the spread of the immediate effects of the epidemic to other parts of the world. Yet, many people are talking about revolting against the government dome and roaming outside, because they are in fact not "infected" yet. Let's also pretend that the only way to stop the spread of the disease is to elminate all citizens in Chicago by means of smart missiles. The question then becomes...

Is it morally right to kill every citizen in Chicago for the benefit of the world? In Mill's eyes, yes, more happiness for the entire world is better than more suffering for the entire world. Hence, he would bmob Chicago so the world is "saved." Yet in Kant's eyes, the act itself is so repulsive that it goes against the moral duty and maxim of society to actually destroy massive amounts of human life to save more people. The ends to Kant are of no regard. It is the ACT in which is against his categorical imperatives.

Capital Punishment Protects Us All

As the outrage over Tookie William’s execution subsides, the rampant forty year old debate about the institution of the death penalty once again re-surfaces upon society. Since it’s redemption in 1977, in which the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional, thirty eight states now have the death penalty as a form of punishment on the books. There is no question that having the death penalty available, and molding our republic around harsher punishment for murderers, undoubtedly protects us all.

One of the main arguments against the death penalty is that it is not a deterrent. However, this assertion has been found to be untrue time and time again. First, that statement is ripe with faulty logic. Dismissing the death penalty on that notion requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because jail time does not seem to be any kind of a deterrent from crime as well. Second, just because states have higher crime rates in places where the death penalty is practiced does not assume that it does not act as a deterrent. For example, states with heavy urbanized populations are far more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are predominantly rural. The states that have the high crime rates are compelled to have capital punishment, not the other way around. But wait, let’s bring some statistics in the mix to see if that second statement is even true. According to the JFA, Texas, the state which executes more murderers than any other state, had a murder rate of 15.3 percent in 1991. By 1999, the murder rate had dropped down to 6.1. If we observe some numbers about what happened after we abolished the death penalty in 1965 we find startling results. Between 1965 and 1980, when only two executions had taken place after it was re-implemented in 1977, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. What does this tell us? In conclusion it shows us that as the executions went down, the murder rate went way up. We can also look around the world to find evidence which may suggest capital punishment is a deterrent. If we examine South Africa, which does not have the death penalty, we notice that their murder rate is 6 times that of the United States!

Another common argument from the abolitionists is the claim that there are in fact alternatives to the death penalty, such as life without parole. They claim it’s more expensive to put someone to death, and that sometimes we will convict and execute innocent people. However, there are several key aspects lacking when one declares this to be true. This sentiment inherently ignores all of the inmates and guards who are often killed behind bars, from inmates who should most likely be on death row.
Another flaw is that life imprisonment tends to deteriorate with the passing of time. One example was the James Moore case in New York. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled a young woman by the name of Pamela Moss. Her parents decided not to issue Moore the death penalty as long as he was sentenced to life without parole. Twenty years later, thanks to a change in the sentencing laws, Moore is eligible for parole every two years now.

The statistic on the death penalty being more expensive is also dead wrong. The death penalty costs roughly 2 million dollars for each execution. Yet the JFA estimates that life without parole may cost anywhere between 1.2 million-3.6 million per inmate. Also, it costs 50,000 a year per prisoner annually. If a prisoner lives for more than 40 years, then it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it surpasses the cost of an execution.

As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person, one must understand that we live in an imperfect world, and nothing that is worth having comes without risk. After all, far, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents that have been mistakenly executed this century. In fact there is no evidence that anyone has been executed that has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were innocent. Putting someone to death ensures they will never kill again. The death penalty is not the only institution which intrinsically has risks and dangers in exchange for social benefits. Adhering to the same logic, would we not have to get rid of cars, airplanes and electricity because those institutions have taken innocent lives as well? Of course not, but none of the proponents are advocating the abolishment of these institutions.

Historically, our founders obviously believed that the death penalty was clearly constitutional. How do I know this? Because when they wrote the Constitution, the death penalty was enforced yet they still included the eight amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). Obviously to them, execution did not fall into that category. To sum up the merits of the death penalty, here is an excerpt from Rousseau’s Social Contract in 1762: "Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the state."

DePaul Censors Free Speech by closing Affirmative Action Bake Sale

Well it seems as though the political correctness police at DePaul University have once again hammered away free speech and freedom of thought. The target of authoritarianism was none other then a simple protest against Affirmative Action, by means of a bake sale.

The basic theory behind this bake sale was to set prices which favor some races over others, just like what Affirmative Action advocates. It was a satirical protest to show the ridiculous nature of the policy when implemented in every day life. Students and administrators, by banning or opposing this bake sale, are paradoxically taking a situational stand as opposed to a principled stand on the inherent bias of this policy. Prices went as this:

White and Asian Males- 1.00
White and Asian Females- .75 cents
Black, Hispanic, and Native American Males- .50 cents
Black, Hispanic, and Native American Females- .25 cents
(This is the sign deemed "inappropriate" by McVarish)

The protest went on for roughly 1 hour and 30 mins before public safety came.We made somewhere in the range of 5 to 6 total dollars, as our aim was not to make money, but to foster debate about Affirmative Action on campus, and let the students know DePaul engages in such a discriminatory practice. Soon after the public safety came, the Dean of Students Greg McVarish, ended the civil and constitutionally protected protest. He walked up casually to the table and asked that we close up shop. Seeing as I am not in the profession of mind-reading I implored McVarish as to why we had to leave a peaceful protest in which we were merely engaging in debate with students of all races. He shot back in a pompous and consuming voice, 'Because I'm the Dean of Students.' That was his initial reason to close up the protest, because he has the authority to do so, even though our actions are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. I again asked for a more sufficient reason and he then responded politely but sternly, 'Because your sign is inappropriate.' My sign was inappropriate? So now the Dean of Students can randomly use his authority to shut down peaceful protests with the mere subjectivity of his own reasoning? How can this be I asked? To point out the paradoxical nature of Mr. McVarish, I distinctly remember a stunt pulled by "The Students for Palestine" sometime last year. The setup of the presentation consisted of aligning fake dead bodies made of paper in the middle of the entire Student Center with bloody bullet holes in their head and body under the title of something like, ' Israeli Occupation Kills Palestinians." You would think McVarish would convene his moral authority to impede such ridiculous obscene graphics of "inappropriate" behavior, but McVarish was no where to be found. This protest was never shut down. This protest of Israeli occupation was never shut down, even though it clearly was "inappropriate." After the request from McVarish I got up peacefully and closed up shop with zero resistance and knew that this was merely one battle in the major war that will ensue against DePaul because of their limiting of free speech on campus.

Of course, the outrage and Stalinesque arm of DePaul is not satisfied with merely shutting down the bake sale and censoring free speech. As a matter of fact, three of us at the bake sale are now being investigated on “anti-discriminatory harassment” charges. Yes, that is correct. The one and only DePaul Student Affairs office is now rounding up me and two others to possibly seek further action for violating the Anti-Discriminatory Harassment Policy. The policy is ripe with ambiguity and stomps the discretionary free speech all students should have entitlement too. FIRE, an organization that promotes free speech on campus has now written a letter to DePaul on our behalf asking them to drop this petty investigation.

The sad fact of it all is that this is nothing new, nothing uncommon, nothing out of the ordinary for DePaul, a haven for liberal thought, to clamp down on the conservative students because they disagree with them. I think Greg Lukianoff put it best on a recent episode of a Fox News show called Hannity and Colmes, when he proclaimed loud and clear that “DePaul is a basket case.”