Andy Ho's article in the papers today, giving what he purports to be the moral case for the death penalty, reads rather strangely. He starts by proposing a thought experiment about face-to-face killing (with all the bloodied hands it entails) and killing in the abstract, and then quotes a study that shows that most of us are much more comfortable with the latter.

It makes for interesting reading, because he continues to quote quite a few more observations showing this or that. They range from simplistic observations showing a correlation between Britain's abolition of capital punishment for most crimes except treason and its subsequent rising murder rates, and similarly, Northern Ireland's abolition of the death penalty, and its increased jailhouse murder rates. To that, I can only say that correlation is not equivalent to causation. For more on that, go here.

Taken together with an anecdote about Paul Tibbets, a thought experiment, and an opinion about what the majority of the public would think in a hypothetical hostage scenario, all this forms an argument that points surely to the conclusion that shows that the death penalty can be morally justified.

That's the funny thing. If Andy was really making a moral case for capital punishment, why does he have to resort to citing this or that as a crutch? A moral case that would be worthy of consideration would be made on entirely a priori basis, i.e. without resorting to empirical proof. For example, one does not need to cite any academic studies to show that rape is wrong. The same demand is made of anyone who says he or she has a moral case to make.

It is not really Andy's fault, but what really gets me is this: it is not exactly as if our government was undecided about the issue, and only made up its mind when these studies he quoted came out, is it? Did the whiteshirts postpone passing any law related to the death penalty before these studies were published?

Of course they did not. The government has already made its mind up ages ago. There is no open-eyed curiosity about the viability of the death penalty here; Andy is merely citing evidence to support the government's foregone conclusion. If that apologist wants to be taken seriously, he will have to do better than that.

In Despair? Here's Something Cynically Cheerful Instead

It's ironic that people who misunderstand Akikonomu and others calling for increased protection of local labour, often charge them with being parochial about a situation that arises precisely because of parochialism, albeit one of a somewhat different kind. Anyhow, here's a clip from a song that came to mind. It's "Your Country" from a rather eclectic band called Gogol Bordello, and in my opinion, here's the part most worth listening to. Enjoy!

Gogol Bordello - Your Country

"My Gang Better Than Your Gang!"

Remember that line from your childhood? There is a larger question to all the recent hooha that has been made over 377A: in wanting to live life the way you want it, will you also respect my wanting to live life the way I want it? Or will you force your way of life upon me?

If your answer to the above question is "that's democracy, pal", then I have to ask you what your definition of democracy is, for its most obvious Achilles Heel is that depending on how it is implemented, a tyranny of the majority may result. The best defenses against such tyranny lie in the constitutional limitation of government powers and a bill of rights for all citizens, but these are swords that have effectively been denied to us. Any claims of this country opening up are therefore largely non sequitur.

Perhaps it's best illustrated by a small-scale example involving five friends who are trying to decide where to go for lunch. Say the majority vote for a particular cafe, so the whole group goes there. In this case, it's just a single instance of where they go for lunch, so it's tolerable. But suppose this happens everyday? Suppose these five friends then vote on not just where they go for lunch, but how they are to spend their money, how they spend their time, what subjects they shall study in school, what houses to buy, how they should plan for retirement, and who they are allowed to go after? In further extension, suppose the majority three in this circle then declare punishments for anyone who violates these policies, and beat up any offenders in their group accordingly?

If this scenario is so patently ridiculous to you, then why should it be permissible at a national level? And yet this is precisely what is happening. In wanting to change the world for what they think is for the better, liberals and conservatives alike would do well to beware of this very convenient back door to fascism that their notions of democracy contain.

Saying that one champions a more enlightened way of life in comparison to everybody else sounds bankrupt once such a cop-out is necessary for one's vision to succeed. Whatever the justification, fascism is only objectionable because it is an ideology that is only embraced by bullies. Of the original circle of so-called friends, even if the bullying three that decide things all the time are expelled from the group, there is still no guarantee that of the the remaining two, one of them would not transform into a bully as well.

When you think about it though, whatever the size of a given population of people, a tyranny of the majority will result at some point, for one cannot infinitely subdivide minorities in order to cater to each and every person. The issue then becomes one of marginal utility, and a few questions come to mind:

1) What is the size of the group that one is trying to cater to?
2) How significant are the differences between this group and its immediate superset?
3) How much effort would it take to cater specifically to the needs of this group?

Even with these pragmatic considerations in mind, a lot can still be done. To any who might presume to lead the country in a superior manner to what we currently have, it must be asked: to what extent would such a grotesque transformation and fate be avoided? Unless we all make a concerted effort in this direction, we will continue to watch re-runs of our tired human history over, and over, and over again.