The Ends Do Not Justify the Means

Journal of the Association of Future Philosophers

Ends Do Not Justify the Means, Part I

Ethical Answer to the Problems of Anarchy and Government

Manual of Effective Political Participation


By “Socrates”


In this interdisciplinary
study of the conflict between justice, which philosophers study, and
government, which political scientists and historians study, the author takes
into account the empirical evidence and political science, thus replacing the
‘Ideal Government Assumption,’ with a reality-based concept of government,
leading to the New Paradigm.



said, "Human life is the ultimate good; thatÂ’s why the only just
government policy is to outlaw all abortions, except when absolutely necessary
to save the mother's life.”

heated discussion erupted as usual when a group met to discuss politics, but
took a different turn this time due to a new friend joining the group.

said, "Your proposal and all other government abortion policies are
incompatible with justice."

said, "That's ridiculous. You've excluded all the possibilities.”

            "On the contrary, you’ve
overlooked governmentÂ’s criminal nature."

            Roderick said, "Whether you
think government is criminal or not is irrelevant – it's going to do something
– no policy is, itself, a policy,”
Roderick said.

            Justice said, "Since you claim
that your proposed government abortion policy is the just one, your view that
governmentÂ’s criminal nature is irrelevant can't be correct for it conflicts
with the Basic Ethical Principle (BEP) which says, ‘the ends do not justify the
means.’  For, if the means are criminal,
the ends, however desirable, will not make the means any less criminal,"
Justice said.

asked, “How can you say that about government? Where the hell is the smoking

said, “We will discuss the evidence of its criminal nature, then answer your
objections, explain some of its harm and danger to society, leading to the
ethical answer to the problems of anarchy and government, and why alternatives
to the ethical answer are insufficient.

The Smoking Gun – The Empirical Test

            "Government is a major source
of crime based on racism, nationalism and religion. From the enslavement of the
Jews in Egypt, to the nuking of Japanese babies in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, to
the U.N. government perpetrating the Horror, murdering more than a million
innocent people with its Iraqi embargo, using disease and malnutrition to
murder Arab children, and above all, the Holocaust, where government murdered
more than six million Jews, including over a million children – government has
covered our planet with innocent blood.

            "It commits theft, assault,
rape and murder on a scale otherwise unimaginable, from the theft of lands of
Indians to the rape of Bosnian women and the rape of Koreans used as 'comfort
women' during WW II, to the murder of over 200 million human beings last
century, a crime otherwise unheard of in all history.

            "Government murdered Socrates and Jesus so
dramatically, and now murders millions routinely, efficiently and without
fanfare. And when not murdering people, it napalmed children, burning their
skin off their bodies. When not bombing humans, it starved them to death, or
murdered innocent persons by obstructing access to life-saving drugs and
medical care. It created millions of refugees. In the Vietnam War, Nixon joined
the one million human being club. With modern government technology, this
ominous club is becoming less and less exclusive. When conscientious people
motivated by justice protested its crimes, it committed the Kent State, Jackson
State and Tienanmen Square Massacres.

            "It created slave laws and Jim
Crow laws. It murdered American Indians, murdered more than a million people in
the Armenian genocide and murdered thousands in its Panama invasion.

            "While we saw on TV its ferocious clubbing of Rodney
King by CSLA alumni Stacey Koon and other government officials, most of its
crimes are merely reported in newspapers. For example, when the U.S. government
created its Wall of Racism along the Mexican American border, murdering many
Hispanic immigrants every year, they are often reported anonymously in the

Government and Anarchy

"Government created anarchy in Lebanon,
Yugoslavia, and Chechnya – producing violence, destruction, brutality, butchery
and carnage against innocent women, men and children. On a smaller scale, it
created anarchy in Los Angeles where it oppressed minorities for decades and
after its officials brutally clubbed Rodney King, it acquitted them in one of
its courts. Predictably, L.A. went up in flames, and more than 50 people were

some claimed government is the solution for the problem of anarchy, in Los
Angeles, government existed throughout the anarchy in several levels– city
government, county government, state government, federal government, and
international U.N. government. Its existence did not prevent anarchy, but was a
necessary cause of it. While some claimed government is the solution for the
problem of civil war, the evidence refutes that theory. For instance, the
British government did not prevent the American Revolution, but was a necessary
cause of its occurrence.

            "Government has a long rap
sheet that extends from the beginning of its history to the present, from its
restrictions on freedom of religion by ancient government to the nuclear
bombings of innocent women, men and children by modern government. It has drawn
first blood. Examining the evidence, we can understand the nature of government
and rationally understand that, if we permit it to have power over the lives of
innocent women, men and children, its rap sheet of innocent victims will reach
many millions of human beings this century.

have cited only some of its crimes. If some Turks still dispute the Armenian
genocide, if some Japanese still dispute the crimes of Nanking, or some
Americans still dispute the crimes of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you can utilize
your history education to provide many more examples so that they could still
benefit from our discussion in understanding governmentÂ’s criminal nature and
the ethical answer.

Is this the best that humanity can

            “You’ve presented some of the
important examples of governmentÂ’s crimes against humanity. Considering all the
evidence the historians have amassed, I can hardly think of a worst social
disease,” Mary said. “I think that humanity can certainly do better than this –
after all we are more intelligent than most other animals.”

said, “But when I read in the papers and in history books about massacres and
genocides in various countries, I believe this is a natural occurrence; it is
the natural condition of humanity. We have evolved through Darwinian evolution
to be the type of creatures we are, and societies and civilizations also evolve
through a process of social Darwinism, so that we and our societies are the
best adapted to our environment – we should accept these unfortunate events as
the price of civilization.”

said, “How can atrocities be the price of civilization? They hinder
civilization. In addition to the murder of many innocent persons, the crimes
that government commits against humanity set us back decades and centuries. The
building of cities, factories, homes, and social organizations that takes
months, years, or decades to develop – the overawing power of government can
destroy in weeks, days, minutes and even seconds, and the historical evidence
makes dreadfully clear, government has done so, and we can rationally expect
that it will do so again. Justice has made us acutely and irrevocably aware of
the evil nature of government and the importance of finding the ethical answer
to this most horrible social disease. Let’s proceed.”

The Equality Test

            Justice said, "Government divides society into
wolves and sheep, rulers and ruled. This fundamental evil and unforgivable
inequity makes all the other crimes of government possible. From an ethical
point of view, no one is entitled to more rights than the rest of humanity, but
under government, the rulers' actual rights exceed those of the people.

            "For those of us who genuinely and sincerely believe
in justice and take equal rights seriously, the problem of government is not
merely that it commits theft, assault, rape and murder on a scale otherwise
unheard of in all history. But more significantly, the main problem of
government is its dividing humanity into rulers and ruled, wolves and sheep,
creating the inequity of some persons ruling us human beings.

The Criminal Nature of Government

crime of government and its consequent harm to society defines the problem of
government. I have presented the empirical test and the equality test to show
the criminal nature of government. The arguments demonstrate that any theory
that excludes such crimes is not a correct theory of government, and any theory
that includes them is not a correct theory of justice.”

eternal conflict between justice, which philosophers study, and the criminal
nature of government, which historians and political scientists study, leads to
the irrevocable rejection of the Discredited Old Paradigm (DOP) which makes the
bogus claim that government is compatible with justice. Becoming better
acquainted with this conflict between justice and government is the
intellectual force that is irrevocably driving the train to the New Paradigm in
which government is criminal, and the rulers who create, maintain or perpetuate
it are evil criminals.”

Objections and Replies

A.     The Best Government Test

said, “You’ve certainly did what you set out to do. I’m amazed that despite the
unpalatable conflict between justice and government, people for millennia were
led to believe the DOP. But I can see Roderick about to burst. Why donÂ’t we
consider all the serious objections to see if any arguments can block the move
to the New Paradigm?”

            Here Roderick blurted, "I can't
stand it your lumping together government without distinction. I certainly
don't want to defend fascism, but only democracy where the people vote. Are you
equating Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the Holocaust? Are you equating the U.S.
government with fascism?"

            "I don't think you can equate
the Holocaust with the nuking of babies in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the
Holocaust, government murdered vastly more human beings than it murdered with
nuclear bombs, hellish as they are. The U.S. government is certainly not
fascist; despite what some say in the heat of political debate, it is a
democracy, simply the best form of government,” Justice said.

            “Furthermore, it is easy to distinguish
them by simple observation. You can easily observe that the uniforms and
insignia of U.S. government employees who nuked babies they called ‘Japs’ are
not the same as those of the Nazis. Simply look – merely by opening your eyes
and looking – you can see that their flags are different. For these reasons,
you cannot equate them at all,” Justice said.

            "Turning to democracy,
unquestionably the best form of government, we find that it murdered Socrates;
nuked babies; participated in the Horror, murdering Arab children; murdered
American Indians; and established slave laws and Jim Crow Laws. It also
destroyed many careers with its House Un-American Activities Committee.

            “While the U.S. government has a
‘written constitution,’ ‘enumerated powers,’ ‘a bill of rights,’ ‘division of
powers (a federal-state system),’ ‘judicial review,’ ‘checks and balances,’
‘bicameral legislature,’ ‘separation of powers,’ ‘majority rule and minority
rights,’ ‘civil service,’ ‘periodic elections,’ ‘civil rights,’ ‘an independent
judiciary,’ ‘military under civilian control,’ ‘free elections,’ ‘government
school system,’ etc. – it is a democracy, simply the best form of government –
it is incompatible with justice.

            "I have given numerous cases of
crimes committed by democracy since it is by far the best form of government.
Fascism is certainly the absolute worst. If the best form of government cannot
be reconciled with justice, no government can be. If the best form of
government is criminal, it is remarkable that some political philosophers
engaged in morally repugnant attempts to justify it."

said, “You’ve criticized government and anarchy – haven’t you then ruled out
all the possibilities? And since you rule out anarchy as criminal, how do you
propose we deal with anarchists?”

            Carol said, “I introduce the concept of nostatism,
defined as a society without anarchy and government that is just, free and

said, “I believe that those who advocate anarchy are well within their rights
of free speech to do so, but those who cross the line and engage in anarchy are
criminals. Hence, we are deontologically justified in using appropriate force
against them, including deadly force, considering the seriousness of their
crimes. The deontological justification is the crucial moral element. On the
other side, consequentialist moral theories such as ethical egoism, pragmatism
and utilitarianism attempt to justify actions by their consequences. But, since
justice is about deserts, entitlements or more generally, what is equitable,
these theories fail to capture justice, despite centuries of vain attempts to
finesse it. This is why consequentialists face an unpalatable tension in their
theories – an eternal conflict between unjust means and the consequences they
desire above all else.”

The sheep-wolf fallacy

“You are
unpatriotic. When you say the U.S. government is criminal, you are saying that
I am a criminal,” Roderick said resentfully.

            Carol said, “Of course not. Some,
out of an unthinking sense of ‘patriotism,’ psychologically feel an obligation
to love government and appallingly attempt to justify the unjustifiable, even
when we tell them what it has done to innocent babies in Nagasaki, Nanking and
Auschwitz. We can only reason with the reasonable – since you are not part of
government, you are absolutely innocent of its crimes. Perhaps because you have
been socialized to psychologically identify with the rulers, you have committed
the sheep-wolf fallacy. Avoiding this fallacy, many of us are unwaveringly
loyal to justice and love our hometown, our city and our country.”

B. Guilty ignorance is no justification

            Roderick said, “You’ve shown that
government officials have done criminal things for which they should certainly
receive justice, but that doesnÂ’t mean all government is criminal or that all
the rulers who create and perpetuate it are criminals. After all, they cannot
know what crimes future rulers will commit.”

            Carol replied, “I will present a
story that illustrates how Justice has already refuted this argument. Using a
large time travel device, a 21st century historian goes to the Constitutional
Convention in Philadelphia, and through a series of events, which I omit here,
the Founding Fathers gain access to her computer containing a huge collection
of history books, including many about the Convention and the U.S. government.

congratulate others on their success in creating a government that becomes the
superpower of the 21st century, puts a man on the moon, explores the planets of
our solar system, and creates the richest country on the planet – they urge the
immediate signing of the Constitution. But, others read about its slave and Jim
Crow laws, the Great Terrorism where it nuked babies, its role in the Horror,
and its Vietnam War where it murdered millions of human beings.

read about its Wall of Racism across the Mexican-American border where it
murdered many Hispanic immigrants in their attempts to improve their
socio-economic status, its invasion of Panama where, according to the movie
‘the Panama Deception,’ it murdered thousands, its Kent State and Jackson State
Massacres where it murdered students, its HUAAC where it destroyed the careers
of many people. Looking at the facts, taking the evidence into account, they
decline to sign, arguing the ends donÂ’t justify the means. They point out that
the rulers who create, maintain or perpetuate such a government are criminals.

            “Some claim that they were
supporting creating the U.S. government because they did not know what they
were doing. How could they know about these future events? But others point out
that they are all well educated and very knowledgeable of political science and
of the crimes government had committed over the millennia – hence, they cannot
claim innocent ignorance of governmentÂ’s criminal nature.

            “Here a clever delegate points out
that these future histories will not necessarily occur since they do not
include the discussion they are having at the moment, and argues these books
are false. But, Ben Franklin suggests a sufficient explanation of these
omissions – that the delegates are part of a thought experiment!

what is its purpose, some ask, is it to see if they would create the U.S.
government with their eyes open, since now they can no longer pretend innocent
ignorance? Ben Franklin suggests its purpose is more than that – to ask whether
an educated person can ethically create, maintain or perpetuate government
knowing that it will commit serious crimes against humanity, without knowing
the specific crimes it will commit – whether he could turn his back on humanity
and justice, become a collaborator, aiding and abetting government, and remain

The Hubris of the Wolves – Creating a Time Bomb that
Destroys Children

“While the Founding Fathers claimed in the preamble
of their constitution that they were establishing justice, that merely shows
the hubris of the Fathers,” Carol said. “We must keep in mind that Hitler,
Truman and Nixon did not create government ex niholo – out of nothing – they
were standing on the shoulders of previous rulers. When Nixon was murdering
more than a million people in the Vietnam War, he was standing on the shoulders
of Kennedy, George Washington and King George. When the first Bush was
murdering innocent Arab children, he was standing on the shoulders of Reagan,
Carter and Roosevelt. The rulers who create, maintain and perpetuate government
are creating, maintaining and perpetuating a time bomb that repeatedly commits
ferocious crimes against humanity, including defenseless innocent babies – they
are guilty of aiding and abetting government.”

C. Does Free Will Exonerate the Fathers?

            Roderick said, “You’ve made a sneaky hidden assumption
with your tricky constitutional convention story that determinism is true. You
haven’t taken free will into account. Look at your mind – don’t you notice that
you make free decisions? The subsequent rulers were guilty for committing
crimes of their own free will, but that doesnÂ’t mean the Fathers are
responsible for the actions of these subsequent evil rulers.”

Mary said, “I suspect that the
typical believer in free will holds that view based on his or her experience of
making decisions that is up to him or her. However, these subjective
experiences do not help us reach a correct view of whether people have free

William JamesÂ’s Decision

“Philosophers have avoided being misled by these subjective
experiences. After all, these subjective experiences might be as consistent
with determinism as they are with indeterminism. Consider William JamesÂ’ example,
where James is facing a decision of which of two streets to take home, or if
you prefer, substitute any other case the free-willers takes to be their
paradigm case of free will.

“Subjectively, James feels it is up
to him. However, in deciding whether that feeling is true, this subjective
feeling does not help at all. Suppose James decides to walk down Oxford Street,
but upon standing, suddenly feels sick. After the doctor gives him medicine,
James loses his memory of his Oxford decision and how he reached it. Confronted
again by the same choice of which street to take home, he now makes what he
subjectively feels to be a free decision, choosing Oxford Street.

“But, before walking home, James
takes another dose of his medicine, again losing his memory of his decision, so
now he considers the matter again, again making what he subjectively feels to
be a free decision, deciding again to walk down Oxford Street.

“After taking the medicine as many
times as you like, every time deciding on Oxford Street, he stops taking the
medicine, remembers all his previous decisions, realizing he had no free will
at all but to choose Oxford Street.”

Roderick said, “Since James’s
decision is a free one, he would sometimes choose Oxford Street, but at other
times, he would choose Divinity Street. He wouldnÂ’t make the same decision
every time.”

said, “This story suggests a way to help decide the question of free will. By
creating such a memory drug, one that is as safe as marijuana, scientists and
philosophers could safely conduct empirical tests to find whether people have
free will, and if so, to investigate which decisions are free.”

What about Heisenberg?

Roderick said, “The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP)
shows that indeterminism is true. It says that you canÂ’t measure both the
velocity and the position of particles such as electrons beyond a certain level
of accuracy. This ‘swerve’ shows that determinism cannot be true.”

            Mary said, “Imagine this situation where scientists discover a
reaction which every time produces one electron which has the same velocity,
and they repeat this reaction many times with the same result.  If the scientists produce this reaction
again and this time, they measure the position with as much accuracy as
possible, they could measure the position and infer the velocity from previous
experiments. They would know the position and velocity with an accuracy
exceeding what HUP allows if both its position and velocity were measured at
the same time. This thought experiment shows that HUP by itself does not prove

            “Of course, we
can easily imagine other possibilities where scientists can overcome
Heisenberg. Suppose scientist find a reaction that produces only two subatomic
particles and every time they conduct this experiment, measuring both
particlesÂ’ velocities, they find they are equal or related in an unvarying way.
If they repeat the experiment, this time measuring one particleÂ’s velocity,
they would know both particlesÂ’ velocity. And if they measure the other
particlesÂ’ position, they would know its position and velocity with greater
accuracy than Heisenberg allows if scientists measured both magnitudes of the
same particle.

Data for

Carol said, “We’ve gone off on a
tangent – let’s get back to the Constitutional Convention story. Whether Mary’s
method works or not, and if subsequent rulers have free will – that will not
exonerate the fathers. The free will of subsequent rulers might explain the
criminal nature of government, but does not deny its criminal nature. If their
free will is the correct explanation of governmentÂ’s criminal nature, it would
suggest that if Hitler, Truman, Nixon, Boutros-Boutros Ghali, Clinton and the
first Bush had been replaced with computers, government would not have
perpetrated the Holocaust, nuked babies, napalmed children or perpetrated the
Horror. If that is what you are proposing, how are you going to replace the
rulers with computers?”

D. Social Contract
– Is it real?

            Roderick said, "Philosophers
have recognized the problem of unequal rights for a long time, and that
government does things to people that are unjust to do to other persons without
their consent, and philosophers, such as Hobbes, have given us social contract
theories where the people consent to government."

            "Socrates’ social contract,
Hobbes’ social contract, Locke’s social contract – which one did you sign?
Hobbes knew enough history to know that such an event never occurred. It is
hypothetical consent," Justice said. "She says, 'He raped me.' He
says, 'I did not. She consented.' She says, 'I did not consent. He says, 'Well,
she hypothetically consented.' Was she raped or did she consent?" Justice
asked. "Substituting, 'It would have been rational for her to consent' or
'She would have consented if she were behind a veil of ignorance' hardly makes
the argument any more convincing."

            "In Rawls' theory, hypothetical
consent is sufficient since the original position is the only way to decide on
what is just to which all reasonable people can agree, and they will agree on a
government that enforces his liberty and difference principles. It is not meant
to deal with sexual consent,” Roderick said.

            "The rape case is useful since
in this case we take consent seriously – hypothetical consent doesn't meet the
ethical standard if we need the consent of the governed to ethically justify
government. Rawls presents a thought experiment by which he claims that justice
requires government to enforce Rawls' two principles. He is saying, in effect,
that he does not need actual consent," Mary said.

"I would like to point out another
reason Rawls' view of justice differs from mine. I will present a thought
experiment about the society of George-Rawls, where generation after
generation, all the workers are blue collar and the society has one severely
disabled person who lives on $20,000 a year from the government. This $20,000
comes from a tax on two especially hard working persons who work a lot of
overtime in the most difficult and hazardous conditions. The two hard workers
make $30,000 a year before taxes and each pays $10,000 a year in taxes. Under
the tax laws of the society, the especially hard workers are subject to a
$10,000 tax. All other workers make $20,000 a year and pay no taxes. Hence if
the two hard workers decided to take a typical job for $20,000 before taxes,
they would end up with $10,000 after taxes. They prefer the overtime and
hazardous work and end up with $20,000 after taxes just like everyone
else," Mary said. "On Rawls' view, any change from this distribution
would violate the difference principle since it would create inequality that
does not benefit the least well off group in society, but this distribution is
unjust. Hence, if RawlsÂ’ two principles are implied by his original position,
then his original position is incompatible with justice."

may have already consented to nuking babies.”

            Roderick said, "But in the case
of the U.S. government, it gets its power from the consent of the

            "This argument and all other consent theories don't
work," Justice said. "Since you don't have an ethical right to nuke
babies, establish slave laws, murder Native Americans or Arab children or
commit any other crimes for that matter, you cannot ethically consent to a
government that does.”

            Roderick said, “Philosophers, such
as Hobbes, have produced theories of justice where such activities are just.”

            Justice said, “Philosophers do not
have free will to turn injustice into justice. Any theory that includes such
crimes is not a correct theory of justice.”

E. The August 8 Fallacy

Roderick said,
“We don’t establish slave laws, commit the Holocaust or nuke babies any more–
why do you keep harping on these ancient crimes?”

            Justice said, “Since we are not part
of government, we are innocent of these crimes. These examples are important in
understanding governmentÂ’s criminal nature. Since it exists over years, decades
or centuries, we need to look at its rap sheet to avoid misunderstanding it. If
you only look at small time slices, you might miss important insights into its
criminal nature. Someone who makes that mistake might realize it was nuking
babies on August 6, then again on August 9, but, aha, what about August 8? In
addition, these examples are important for understanding how it protects its
criminals from justice and obstructs justice for its victims – continuing
injustice – perpetuating evil.”

F. Are you a wolf or a sheep? Is government good for the sheep?

            Roderick said, "The
justification of the excessive rights of the rulers is that government

            Justice asked, "Works for whom?
For the rulers?"

            Roderick said, "It's not only
good for the rulers, itÂ’s also good for the ruled."

            "While this argument resembles
that of Southern slave owners, that slavery is really good for the slaves, not
merely for the slave owners, we should evaluate it on its own merits. While
this is a political science question, we don't have to take Political Science
415, where students examine how power is distributed, to realize that under
government the wolves eat the sheep.

you a wolf or a sheep? Your status in the political food chain is vastly more
relevant than whether you are liberal or conservative. The wolves rule the
sheep and that affects whether you win or lose from government – this is
tragically obvious in the case of the Gulf War.

“THE SHEEP: Hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis and hundreds of Americans were killed. In addition, tens of thousands
contracted the debilitating Gulf War sickness and will probably suffer the rest
of their truncated lives from the War.

“THE WOLVES: the first Bush and
Schwartzkopf won their Gulf War, and so did the Kuwaiti wolves who returned to
power and privilege. Saddam Hussein, the top Iraqi wolf, lost part of his
military, but maintained his position in power for years without suffering from
Gulf War sickness.

Preceding their war, United Nations wolves such as Boutros-Boutros Ghali
imposed an embargo on the Iraqi sheep in order to punish the Iraqi wolves. The
U.N. governmentÂ’s embargo cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of children,
according to news reports – another holocaust against innocent sheep.

Old Paradigm Political Philosophy is for the Wolves.

ask a sheep to decide between liberalism and conservatism is silly. After all,
a sheep cannot tell the wolves what to do. A wolf such as the first Bush can
make a real choice of liberalism or conservatism since he is a wolf.

course some do not see themselves as sheep. Even though they are not rulers,
they psychologically identify with the wolves. Just as dogs who think they are
humans are called 'shmogs,' I suggest we call sheep who think they are wolves –

the wolves point of view, the best sheep are shwolves. They run with wolves. In
fact, wolves call on the shwolves for help, and shwolves often help the wolves
rule, hurt and murder other sheep. In the Gulf War, the wolves didnÂ’t hurt each
other; instead they used the shwolves to kill other sheep. Perhaps, the 50,000
persons with the Gulf War sickness now realize their cost for being shwolves.

other crimes that also refute RoderickÂ’s argument, I ask whether the partisans
of government believe their peculiar institution was good for the persons
murdered in the Kent State, Jackson State and Tienanmen Square Massacres? Do
they sincerely believe the young Americans who were drafted and shipped to
Vietnam as cannon fodder, then shipped back in body bags for their families,
benefited from government? (These body bags might not be your color – but look,
theyÂ’re just your size!) Do they believe that government was good for Clarence
Chance, an innocent man whom it imprisoned for 17 years? Can they believe
sincerely that government was good for the victims used in the Tuskegee
syphilis experiment and Nazi experiments? May I remind you that during the Cold
War, Soviet and U.S. government rulers built deep underground nuclear-proof
shelters for themselves, so that in case they started a nuclear war, they would
live while your children die? Regardless of what the partisans might say, the
powerless have often paid the cost of government with a pound of flesh and a
gallon of blood. Dividing society into rulers and ruled, wolves and sheep, has
not only caused anarchy, it is an evil underlying all of government's other
crimes against humanity."

            Roderick said, “Since ethical
concepts apply only to persons, and since government is not a person, but a
certain type of organization, how can moral terms apply to it?”

            Justice said, “When we talk about
governmentÂ’s criminal nature, we are saying that the rulers who create,
maintain and perpetuate it are criminals, and collaborators who give it aid and
comfort are aiding and abetting criminals, betraying innocent human beings.”

G. We can understand governmentÂ’s criminal
nature by examining the evidence.

            "You haven't yet defined
government by genus and species. I have a vague idea of what you are talking
about, but could you be more precise?" Roderick asked.

            "I didn't offer a definition of
'government' since we already know what is or is not government. For any
definition, such as that of Max Weber, we would have to examine it to see if it
is adequate, or whether it is too broad or too narrow. That presupposes that we
already know what is or is not government," Justice said.

            "Despite your reason, if I were
to use Max Weber's conception of government, it's obvious that nothing in that
concept implies that it murders people. So you haven't proved your case,"
Roderick said

            James interceded, "I will give
an analogy to show your objection is not sufficient to refute Justice's
arguments. If some were to suggest injecting millions of people with large
quantities of battery fluid, you would object that that would murder millions.
If they were to reply that nothing in the concept of battery fluid implies it
is poisonous, would that carry any weight with you? Would you agree to roll up
your sleeve?"

H. Ideal government vs. real government

            "But philosophers such as
Robert Nozick, Kant, John Locke, Plato, Ayn Rand, and John Rawls, have theories
of just governments. They must think that their proposed governments are
possible." Roderick said.

            Justice said, "These philosophers were using what I
call, 'the Ideal Government Assumption,' where they fantasize of government that
doesn't commit crimes against society. I believe that assumption has a value in
their theories. Sometimes economists assume perfect knowledge to understand
some economic factor. But, when they want correct economic theories, they
eliminate contrary-to-fact assumptions such as the perfect knowledge
assumption, taking the distribution and cost of knowledge into account. Justice
is relaxing the 'Ideal Government Assumption,' taking account of government's
criminal nature, leading to interesting results. While ideal government doesnÂ’t
nuke babies, in reality, government has nuked real flesh and blood babies. I
suggest that a major difference between JusticeÂ’s view and those who are wedded
to the Ideal Government Assumption is epistemological. Using the methods of
political science and history, we reach knowledge of government that differs
for the views reached using the Ideal Government Assumption.

            “Furthermore, even if God were to magically create an
Ideal Government, such as NozickÂ’s and RawlsÂ’s, no force in the universe could
prevent it over time from committing serious crimes against society,” Carol
said. “While philosophers often give some thought to human nature in their
theories, by failing to study and take account of the criminal nature of
government, they plant themselves and their theories into the Disredited Old
Paradigm. The conflict between justice and government – that eternal conflict
is driving the train to the New Paradigm.

I. “Mr. Partisan, what’s your acceptable number of murdered children?”

            Roderick said, “I now agree that, of
course, government is guilty of serious crimes. You cannot seriously expect
government, considering all it does, not to commit crimes from time to time.
But, your standards that you use to judge government are too high.”

said, “In the 20th century it murdered over 200 million persons – how many is
compatible with justice? And how many is OK with you?” Justice asked. “And the
holocausts government will commit in the future if it is not abolished – are
they sincerely OK with you?”

said, “If we apply a standard of zero tolerance for injustice, no organization
could be ethically justified. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, which
stands for the rights of the oppressed Palestinians and condemns terrorism,
would be a criminal organization because of its terrorism against innocent
Israelis, including children and babies. I want to suggest that we formulate a
standard that provides more tolerance for injustice by an otherwise good
organization than your standard for an organization to be criminal. Merely
because it nuked two cities does not mean the U.S. government is criminal.”

said, “Attempting to reconcile injustice with justice is an irrational way to a
philosophically respectable ethics; it is a recipe for disaster when you start
promoting a tolerance for injustice – you lose your moral balance down that
steep slide. If the PLO blowing up an Israeli baby is OK with you, what about
Al Queda (the base) destroying three thousand innocent people?; and if that is
ethically OK with you, what about the U.S. government destroying hundreds of
thousands, including babies, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?; and if that is
ethically OK with you, what about the German government destroying over six
million Jews, including over a million children in the Holocaust? When you
advocate tolerance for murder, you need to face the question – Roderick, what
is your number? What level of evil are you proposing as your ethically
acceptable number of murders? Please tell us Roderick, in your theory of
justice, what is the legitimate role in a civilized society for an organization
that destroyed the World Trade Center?, what is the legitimate role of an
organization that nuked two cities full of babies in two cities?, what is the legitimate
role of an organization that committed the Holocaust?”

            Roderick said, "Since in the
vast preponderance of time, government does not nuke cities full of babies or
perpetuate the Holocaust, these crimes are aberrations or anomalies."

within the DOP. The New Paradigm can easily handle these facts," Justice

said, “The New Paradigm assumes that human beings are perfect, but since that
is not the case, the New Paradigm has no relation to the real world.”

            Justice said, “The New Paradigm
makes no such assumption.”

“I’m sorry my country bombed your
country.” – a greeting card at an art show

            Carl, a philosophy professor, said,
“The crimes you cited show that government can become corrupt, but Justice’s arguments
aren’t applicable to governments that aren’t corrupt.”

said, “In his morally repugnant attempt to justify the tree of government, the
partisan often resorts to two typical sorts of arguments - one is denial and
the other is a variety of ‘the-ends-justify-the-means.’

J. In denial
“While denial
arguments include those of neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust and Turkish
government officials who deny the Armenian genocide, they also include
arguments of those who attempt to underestimate the number of people murdered.”

 “But the more sophisticated denial arguments
attempt to shift the problem onto something else. For example, Carl blames
corrupt government for the Holocaust, the terrorist bombings of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima, etc.

is based on a utopian fantasy of government that didn't commit the Holocaust,
that didn't commit the terrorist bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that
didn't create and enforce its Wall of Racism across the Mexican-American
border, murdering many Hispanic immigrants.

fantasy where no political prisoners exist, where innocent people are not
imprisoned for growing marijuana or producing other drugs, where the Kent
State, Jackson State and Tienanmen Square massacres didn't happen, where Salman
Rushdie wasn't threatened with execution, where the wolves don't eat the sheep
– where the children murdered by the U.S. government's bombings in Yugoslavia
and Afghanistan are still alive and going to school.

course, many famous philosophers such as John Locke, Ayn Rand, John Rawls,
Robert Nozick, Plato and numerous others have fantasies, some rather elaborate,
of a tree of government that produces a different sort of fruit than it does.
However, the differences between their fantasies and the criminal nature of
government shows an anomaly in their DOP,” Justice said.

said, “While some advocate emulating the U.S. government in the hopes of
creating democracies that do not commit such crimes. However, as one theatre
arts instructor would say, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over in the hope of a different result. Yet, partisans of government
have created governments with the hope that their governments wouldnÂ’t be
criminal, but their governmentsÂ’ crimes reveal their inexhaustible hubris.

philosophers such as Hobbes, and semi-subversive philosophers such as Rawls and
Nozick, who have more than enough IQ points to understand the criminal nature
of government, who have well founded knowledge of its crimes against innocent
women, men and babies, and can understand that it will commit more crimes
against irreplaceable persons, including babies, yet choose to defend it to
their students, they fall ethically short, making themselves less than ethically
admirable,” Carol said. “When they use their unequalled intellects to defend
government knowing what it does to innocent babies, I will never forgive them.”

said, “Human nature is evil, and these crimes are caused by human nature, not
government. After all, people have murdered other people long before Cain
murdered Abel.”

said, “This is yet another type of denial argument. However, blaming human
nature does not exonerate government. While it might be a proposed explanation
of why government commits crimes against society, human nature is not a
sufficient explanation. After all, how many Jews could Hitler have gassed
without government? How many babies could Truman have nuked without

K. Unjust means vs. "good" ends

a political science professor, asked, "Can government do good without
doing evil?"

said, “When denial fails -- when the partisan admits the criminal nature of
government, that the wolves eat the sheep – he typically argues that the ends
justify the means.

examples of this sort of ends-justify-the-means are Hobbesian-style arguments,
where the partisan argues that government is necessary to prevent ‘a war of all
against all.Â’

extreme types of ends-justify-the-means arguments include partisanÂ’s claims
that it is necessary for society since it creates respectable borders which
make society safe and secure, or that it is necessary since it prevents global
warming from making the planet uninhabitable. Another type of
ends-justify-the-means argument is where the partisan argues that he is getting
more benefits than burdens from government, and hence it is in his

these arguments of the partisan fail as ethical justification for his peculiar
institution since the ends do not justify the means. The partisan is committing
the fallacy of government – making the bogus assumption that government is an
ethically legitimate means, that it is somehow compatible with justice – a view
that flies of the face of the evidence of its criminal nature that historians
have amassed, only a portion of which we have discussed here today. If the
means are ethically illegitimate, the ends, however desirable, will not make
the means ethically legitimate. If the means are criminal, the ends, however
desirable, will not make the means any less criminal.

this explains why the partisan of government typically vacillates between
denial and the-ends-justify-the-means arguments. It is indicative of an anomaly
in his DOP between the criminal nature of government on one hand and justice on
the other.

"Honey, who bombed the

Yugoslavia, Serbian government officials denied its crimes against Albanians,
and when the U.S. government bombed innocent persons, government officials
vacillated between denial and the-ends-justify-the-means arguments.

view of the fruit of the tree of government, including the anarchy in
Yugoslavia, we can rationally expect the partisan to continue vacillating in
his morally repugnant, and vain, attempts to reconcile government with justice.
Despite any self-serving claims that he is well-intentioned, in actuality, the
partisan of government is a vicious partisan of injustice,” Carol said.

L. Can the justice system overcome the legal system?

government commits crimes against society, its legal system protects its
criminals from justice and obstructs justice for its victims,” Justice said.

            Bartholomew said, “How could that be
possible since the legal system is a justice system. After all, you canÂ’t have
justice without law.”

            Justice said, “Philosophers
understand the difference between them due to their study of concepts such as
law or justice and because of their knowledge of the case of Socrates, the
paradigm case of ‘law and order.’ The government followed all its laws and the
result was its murder of Socrates. In the case of the Holocaust, many followed
justice by courageously hiding Jews from the Nazis, although their actions were
not in accord with the law.”

said, “Pseudo-intellectuals who confuse law with justice commit the Socratic
Fallacy – they are over two millennia behind the curve.”

            “In the Bowers v. Hardwick case
(1986), the rulers claimed the right to arrest homosexuals in Georgia who
engage in sodomy, a fun and pleasurable activity. This case illuminates the
irreconcilable conflict between the justice system and their legal system, and
how the friends of justice must overcome the partisanÂ’s legal system to fulfill
their responsibility,” Justice said.

            “The rulers outlawed all sodomy in
the wording of their law, but they enforced it only against homosexual sodomy.
Hence, the wording of their law does not indicate the extent of their crime;
their actions show this crime was directed against homosexuals only – a hate

            “Nor were the victims only those who
were arrested, but every homosexual who lived in fear of the rulers' gunmen.
The enforcement of this law threatened all homosexuals who enjoyed, or wanted
to enjoy, the pleasure, fun and joy of sodomy.”

            Max interrupted “But I strongly feel
that homosexuality is wrong.”

            “Why?” Justice asked.

            “Because I did not enjoy it,” Max

            “Of course, the victims of this law
are denied full restitution, and the rulers' legal system protects the rulers
from justice. With the passage of time and the passing away of victims and
criminals, less and less justice is possible. This is part of government's
modus operandi,” Justice said.

            “When it imposed its slave laws and
its Jim Crow laws, the legal system obstructed justice for the victims and for
the rulers. The victims who survived slavery didn't even receive the appearance
of justice, while the rulers' legal system protected the rulers from justice.

            “This is the modus operandi it
followed when HUAAC destroyed the careers of many people, when the rulers
imprisoned Mohammed Ali for refusing to become a slave of government, when it
restricted abortions, murdering many women in unsafe abortions, and when it
committed the terrorist bombings of babies in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

            “While partisans might view its
legal system as a good substitute for justice, every year its gunmen capture
and intimidate many innocent persons, imprison innocent persons, sometimes for
years, and sometimes execute innocents; government protects its criminals from
justice, while obstructing justice for its countless victims.

The cost of government on society – the criminal
legal system

Roderick said, “How can you complain about
the U.S. government’s criminal legal system – it’s the best.”

 “Reformers have failed to rehabilitate the criminal legal system so
that it is no longer criminal. The government uses its legal system to obstruct
justice for innocent persons, and it protects the criminals from justice. The
existence of the criminal legal system puts us in danger; this is a terrible
cost of government on the politically weak, especially young male blacks,
Hispanics or other minorities.”

            “I am not arguing here that these
crimes show that government is criminal – for I have already shown that – but
to show the extent of the problem of government and the ethical responsibility
of the friends of justice.”

            “The justice system is being
overpowered by the legal system, and while political science can help us
understand why this is the case, the friends of justice, whenever and wherever
we can do so, accept an ethical responsibility to administer justice.”

N. Murder Now, Justice Later? The Infinite Regress Problem

            Roderick said, "When a
government commits a crime against society, a higher level of government can
later impose justice on a lower level government. A federal government can
impose justice on a local government and an international government such as
the U.N. can later impose justice on a federal government.

            "Therefore, although government
has murdered over 200 million human beings in the last century and we can
rationally expect that it will murder millions more in this one, it is
ethically acceptable since a higher government can later impose justice."
Roderick argued.

            Justice said, "One paradox of
this view is that it leads to an infinite regress since, for every government,
a higher government is required. The empirical evidence supports this rational
argument – for after the U.N. government perpetrated the Horror, murdering more
than a million people, mostly children, no higher government imposed justice.

            "Furthermore, as long as the
wolves hold power, government has no free will to administer justice to them,
nor can it force them to pay restitution to their victims. But, the most
important reason your argument fails, Roderick, is that the innocent human
beings that government murders are irreplaceable, thus forever preventing
justice for these victims of government.

            "While government created
nuclear technology, nuked babies, promotes nuclear proliferation and makes us
vulnerable to another Truman, we can rationally expect it to continue to
protect the wolves from justice," Justice said.

O. RoderickÂ’s Promise

said, “You’ve been assuming the criminal nature of government won’t change.
Some of us recognize the problem and have been trying to change its nature so
it doesnÂ’t commit any more crimes. I promise that it will become a good
citizen. I solemnly promise that we will change its nature so it never ever
again harms any innocent person.”

said, “In view of the history of government that extends for millennia, I
cannot accept your promise.”

said, “We’ve heard the reasons for accepting the New Paradigm and we’ve also
heard Justice refute the attempts to block the move to the New Paradigm. The
next step is to understand better the costs government externalizes onto
society, and the ethical answer to this social disease.”

Additional Dangers
of Government to Society –

A. ThatÂ’s
Government Talking

"The crime of government
and its consequent harm to society constitutes the problem of government. I
want to examine some more of those harms," Carol said. “I will start by
citing a crime the U.S. government committed 14 years ago. When the U.S.
government shot down a civilian Iranian airliner in 1988, murdering 290 men,
women and children, the U.S. government said the airliner was outside the
civilian airline corridor, that it failed to ‘squawk’ the civilian message, and
that it was making a steep diving maneuver toward the warship Vincennes.

            “At the time, the Voice of America
and the BBC repeated the government story. Obviously they are government
organs. But, why did the network news and other media propagate the government
story? Why did major newspapers and magazines rely on an unreliable source? Why
did reporters use up some of their own credibility to promote the government
story? Were they unaware of the history of government? Surely they knew that
when Nixon said, ‘I am not a crook,’ that was government talking. When
government officials issued statements about the Vietnam police action,
reporters knew that was government talking.

Government lying vs. the media

            “Of course, at the time of the
shootdown, reporters lacked legitimate sources, hence they were at the mercy of
government. As has occurred before, government officials took advantage of the
news media, which allowed government to take advantage. But, eventually the
truth emerged. The airliner was squawking the civilian message; it was in the
civilian airliner corridor; it was not diving steeply as if to make a bombing
run. And, according to a February 1996 article in the Los Angeles Times, the
U.S. government agreed to pay over $60 million in restitution to the families
of the Iranian victims.

            “The shootdown story was not the
first time the media, misinformed by government, misled its audience. We saw
this during Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal. The movie ‘The Panama Deception’
reveals official lying. The media printed and broadcast the first Bush’s ‘Read
my lipsÂ’ comments.

Government lying vs. political philosophers

            “However, government statements are not a problem merely
for the media. They create an ethical dilemma for the Partisan of Government,
including any political philosopher who tries to reconcile ethics with
government. In the Fundamental Principles
of the Metaphysics of Morals
, Immanuel Kant formulated his Categorical
Imperative, according to which, you should act on the principle that you would
make a principle for all persons. Lying cannot be such a principle since it
would defeat the purpose of making statements, yet, remarkably, Kant believed
in government. Lying is part of the nature of government, from HitlerÂ’s lies to
FuhrmanÂ’s lies, from the Soviet governmentÂ’s to the Egyptian governmentÂ’s lies.

Government lying – the horns
of the ethical dilemma

            Glossing over the immorality of
lying wonÂ’t make it go away. Nor can the media be relied upon to stop the
propagation of government statements. Quite the contrary, the empirical
evidence indicates the media can be expected to help government spread misinformation.

            Some might suggest voting the liars
out of office. However, one vote out of millions is a form of ineffective
decision-making – to engage in such ineffective decision-making is to
implicitly support the status quo. Furthermore, elected officials are not the
only ones making government statements. In the O.J. trial, Detective Fuhrman
lied like a cop. In the case of the Gulf War sickness, pentagon officials lied
like cops, even though they are merely bureaucrats.

            The Partisan of Government might
fantasize about a truthful government, but the dilemma he faces is to either
argue that lying is ethically OK or to confess that government conflicts with
ethics – on which horn of this ethical dilemma would he prefer to sit?

B. Socialization into the ‘Noble’ Lie

            "To continue with our
discussion of the problem of government, I will next present a story of a
society where a person wants to rule the rest. If he could create a weapon all
by himself, whereby he could inflict harm, including death on others without
others being able to harm him, some would resist him, but after killing them
and making that an example for others, the rest would have to submit. To rule
others he needs a desire to rule and a more powerful weapon than others can
bring to bear on him.

no such weapon exists, if he wants to rule others he needs the help of some to
create such a weapon. He might hire some gunmen to enforce his rule and to
protect him, but some of these gunmen might kill him and take over. Since no
one has an ethical right to ruler others, if he were to persuade them with a
'noble' lie that he has an ethical right to rule them and that they have an
ethical obligation to obey him and to help him, he would find things easier and
safer for him. Furthermore, if he were to persuade the people of the ‘noble’
lie, they would be less likely to resist him, and some might be his
enthusiastic supporters," Carol said.

            "Governments that do not
effectively socialize the people with the ‘noble’ lie tend to be replaced by
governments that do. Hence when we examine the world, we see the stable
governments are ones that effectively socialize the people with the 'noble'
lie. Government tends to give its gunmen a double dose of socialization, once
in the government schools and once in boot camp and other military

            "Hence, the 'noble' lie is one
of the tragic costs of government. In fact, ideas which government schools
exclude are sometimes more important that what they teach. Most people never
question their childhood socialization. And of those who do, most cannot
overcome it. Only a few overcome governmentÂ’s socialization and reach an
intellectual level where they can think about the political reality without any
significant influence of this socialization.”

C. Government vs. Privacy – the spies amongst us

            Carol said, “Government spies on the
people to enforce its rule and maintain power over us. Of course, some
reformers have attempted to prevent government spying against us, but as long
as government exists, they have no free will to protect us.

D. Nuclear Terrorism - "Fat Men and
Little Boys."

            "I will discuss another harm
government causes us – the problem of terrorism. While the Partisans have
offered differing definitions, terrorism is defined in the New Paradigm as
attacking innocent persons to affect government. Since terrorism involves
attacking innocent persons, it is always ethically wrong within the New
Paradigm, a fundamentally deontological ethical theory,” Justice said.

            "Terrorism is a case of
government related violence (GRV), and the definition of terrorism leads to the
conclusion that terrorism cannot exist without government. Furthermore,
government makes us vulnerable to terrorism, especially large-scale terrorism,
three ways.

1. Government creates terrorist weapons.

weapons are government's gift to humanity, with government funding scientists
to design uranium and plutonium bombs, and subsequently building increasingly
smaller and more destructive ‘Fat Men and Little Boys.’

Children of the Atomic Bomb: An American
Physician's Memoir of Nagasaki, Hiroshima and the Marshall Islands
, James
N. Yamazaki, with Louis B. Fleming, describes the bombingsÂ’ effects on pregnant
women and children.

wrote, ‘Fusa was six months pregnant when the bomb detonated, and her home in
Takao-machi collapsed. She was 1,600 yards from the hypocenter. She felt
violent movement of the baby within her, then no movement. Nothing.Â’

“He also wrote about the effects of the
bombing on children. ‘A nurse escorted a young mother and her five year old
son. With one glance, I knew I was seeing for the first time the terrible
effect that an atomic bomb can have on the unborn. I concealed my feelings and
proceeded with a routine pediatric examination.... I confirmed the reduced head
size. His erratic and uncontrolled behavior was evidence that mental
retardation was also present.Â’

also includes the story of Fujio Tsujimoto, five years old at the time of the
bombing, he was at Yamazato Elementary School. When the alarm was sounded, he
rushed into a shelter.

to Fujio's account, ‘My brother and sisters were late in coming into the
shelter; so they were burnt and crying.Â’ He goes on to say that his mother and
sister died the following day, and then his brother died.

            "It also created and used
chemical and biological weapons to murder children. With the available evidence
provided by its ominous historical record, we can rationally expect that
government will finance and develop new and extreme terrorist weapons in the future.
It spread nuclear technology and materiel, and created incentives for spreading
the threat that faces us.

2. Terrorism is part of government's modus

            "Government has used its terrorist
weapons, with the U.S. government nuking babies being the paradigm case.
Studying the Great Terrorism is important since it is the only available
example where terrorists nuked cities, murdering innocent women, men and
children. Since it uncorked its nuclear genie on babies in Nagasaki and
Hiroshima and revealed the face of government, I must wonder if the partisans
have human feelings.” Carol said.

3. Being ruled by government makes us
vulnerable to terrorism.

            "In the terrorist attacks on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, innocent babies were targeted for destruction to affect
the Japanese government. The Japanese government's existence was a necessary
condition for the terrorist bombings. The attacks against innocent babies were
perpetrated to shock the Japanese rulers into surrender. The terrorists
murdered innocent sheep to get at the wolves.”

            “Hold on there,” Roderick said.
“They intended to end the war – a war the Japanese government started with
Pearl Harbor; they had no intention to harm innocents.”

it is foreseen, it is intentional; if it is foreseeable, then any claim of
innocent ignorance is false. The act of nuking cities was intentional. Since
that involved nuking babies, that was intentional. If you wish to believe the
nuking of babies was unintentional, then replacing such rulers with
well-intentioned rulers won’t solve the problem of government,” Carol said.
“But to get back to reality, partisans of government have attempted to
exonerate the U.S. government for its terrorist hate crime by blaming the
Japanese government for the attack on Pearl Harbor, but that cannot create an
ethical right to murder babies. Their argument shows that these babies were
targeted for murder because they were living under government. This explains
their murder, but in no way whatsoever does it justify it, nor does it minimize
or change the fact that the U.S. government is a terrorist hate organization.

            "This explains why successful
terrorist attacks are such heinous crimes. To affect government, the terrorists
create massive numbers of innocent casualties, including babies, and the more
impervious the government, the more horrendous the terrorist attack. By
categorizing terrorist attacks that murder up to 1,000 persons as small-scale
terrorism, more than that and up to 100,000 persons as medium-scale terrorism,
more than that and up to 1,000,000 persons as large-scale terrorism, and more
than 1,000,000 as super-terrorism, we can understand the magnitude of the

            "Therefore, when we contemplate
the enormous number of innocent victims that terrorists would have to murder to
successfully affect U.S. government policy, we understand the danger of another
Truman that we face. Since in the case of the U.S. government, conventional
bombs are likely to be ineffective, but large-scale chemical, biological or
nuclear attacks are likely to be effective, we are especially vulnerable from
these weapons.

            "The partisan’s fantasy that
government protects society keeps us in danger of another Truman committing
large-scale terrorism. The partisan of government might believe that it
protects us from such weapons by preventing terrorists from smuggling nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. However, the evidence of government losing its
drug war should make rational people question these claims.

            "Despite its Draconian laws,
its huge drug-war spending, its imprisonment of many innocent people using its
laws; drug businesspersons, processors, financiers, entrepreneurs, shippers,
advertisers, wholesalers and retailers bring huge amounts of drugs – from
Colombia, California, Afghanistan and all over the world to consumers such as
the second Bush or Bill Clinton. This shows that the notion that government
could prevent the shipping of chemical or biological canisters or nuclear bombs
the size of suitcases into our cities is a dangerous fantasy of the partisan.

the three-pronged problem of terrorism government poses to humanity shows the
solution necessary to eliminate terrorism.”

The Rogue Theory of Terrorism

since government created these weapons, innocent people have lived in danger of
another Truman. Some claim the nuclear danger we face comes from rogue
governments only. We call this theory, ‘The Rogue Theory of Terrorism,’”
Justice said. “We can test this theory against the empirical evidence. Nagasaki
and Hiroshima are the only available empirical evidence of terrorists nuking
cities. The U.S. government has claimed responsibility for the bombings. The
Rogue Theory of Terrorism flies in the face of the facts of reality. To make
the facts fit the theory, the Rogue Theorist would have to argue that the U.S.
government is a rogue government.

            "While the partisan of
government might fantasize about changing its nature, changing it into a
humanitarian institution, we realize that the available empirical evidence
indicates the seriousness of the terrorism danger we face.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima in perspective

            "While some might not realize
that the U.N. government's embargo of Iraq is an example of terrorism, it
clearly fits the definition. The U.N. government has murdered more than one
million innocent Arabs, mostly children during the Horror, and the U.N.
officials imposed their embargo in order to affect Iraqi government policy.
Based on the number of people murdered, the U.N. governmentÂ’s crime against
humanity is a more deadly act of terrorism than Hiroshima and Nagasaki

 “While these nuclear bombings are a serious
hate crime, they murdered less people than the Horror, and they pale in
comparison with the Holocaust where the German government murdered over six
million Jews. However, the Great Terrorism murdered more people than the crimes
of Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer or O.J. Simpson. These facts help put in
perspective the crime of government and its consequent harm to society.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima – Evaluate Both Sides before Judging

said, “While no ethics philosopher has produced an ethical theory that includes
a conclusive theodicy of government, fairness requires giving careful thought
to the best ethical arguments for the nuking of babies. Here are the top ten
excuses why nuking babies does not imply the U.S. government is a terrorist
hate group.

Nuking babies is ethically OK because Hitler would have done the same thing had
he gotten the bomb first. And isnÂ’t Hitler the standard of ethical truth?

U.S. government officials were really aiming at the munitions depot at the
northeast corner of Nomura St. and Miyadi Ave.

Instead of calling it ‘terrorism,’ government officials prefer to think of it
as ‘post-birth abortions.’

An atomic bomb is just government’s way of saying, ‘I love you.’

If the U.S. government were a terrorist hate group, government school teachers
would say so. After all, government officials donÂ’t lie.

Any innocent baby who might have died would go directly to heaven; and
Christianity says going to heaven is a good thing.

It was perfectly legal, wasnÂ’t it?

Nuking babies was a public-spirited, kind-hearted way of solving the
overpopulation problem.

Japanese children made themselves fair game when the kiddies bombed Pearl
Harbor with their toy airplanes.

the number one excuse why nuking babies does not imply the U.S. government is a
terrorist hate group -- 1. At the time, ‘Japs’ was a term of endearment.”

Can government be reconciled with

partisan of government has a long record of creating sophistic arguments in his
morally repugnant attempt to justify his criminal institution. While
acknowledging the crimes of government, he might claim that government does
good things. It put Yuri Gagarin into space, put Neil Armstrong on the moon and
gave us the Volkswagen - but how can that ever justify the murder of innocent
people such as Fusa's baby?

double-effect - does it attract and promote the worst to the top? Or, does it
recruit good people and makes them vicious? Or, both?

            “One theory is that government
attracts the worst and promotes them to the top. Another is that at the
beginning of the war, government officials might have had moral concerns about
murdering innocent persons, but over wartime they lost their moral sense. Both
theories are strong indictments of government – while they are attempts to
explain government’s Great Terrorism, they do not exonerate it,” Justice said.

said, “As Jesus said, ‘Judge a tree by its fruit.’ The mushroom clouds,
including the murder of FujioÂ’s family, are the fruit of government created by
the fathers in 1783.”

            Roderick said, “Under the Christian
war doctrine, the U.S. government gave them justice. I think attacking
innocents is considered ethically acceptable if the intention is to attack
criminals without harming innocents, and since the U.S. government officials
intended to attack criminals, the ChristianÂ’s war theory justifies it even
though it involved the foreseeable nuking of many innocents.”

            Warda said, “I most strongly feel we
should be fair to Jesus, an itinerant preacher who started his very own
religion, since he can no longer defend himself. I will tell a story of a peace
errand in which U.S. government official the second Bush sends the first Bush
and Bill Clinton to the Middle East with a peace plan that would satisfy every
government in that area, but the plane encounters severe turbulence and some
mechanical problems. The pilot shows extraordinary skill in steering the plane
to clear skies.

            “But, when severe clear air
turbulence hits the plane, it crashes. At the pearly gates, Peter informs the
first Bush and Clinton that their involvement in the Horror is a problem.
Clinton argues that that is part of their job as presidents of the U.S.

            “Jesus volunteers to go to earth to
show a person could be both a successful politician and an ethical person. God
agrees with the experiment and sends Jesus to earth and takes away JesusÂ’
memory so that he doesnÂ’t know he is the Son of God. Jesus joins the air force
to prepare for a political career; he makes a killing in real estate and
becomes very wealthy in the fishing business. He wins a House seat and then a
Senate seat. Tapped for vice-president, his ticket wins. When the president
dies of a heart attack, Jesus becomes president.

            “It is 1945 and he is informed about
the atomic bomb, but does not want to use it. A week later, his closest allies
in congress, who have congressional oversight over the bomb, insist on a
meeting. They inform him that their conscience will not allow them to remain
quiet as more sons return in body bags, and that they had asked the House and
Senate officials to be prepared to clear the calendar, without telling them
that they will ask for JesusÂ’ impeachment.

agrees to use the bomb, but to spare anyone else possible psychological harm,
he puts on his air force uniform and takes off in the Enola Gay. He drops
Little Boy on Hiroshima, dives steeply away from the bomb as fast as he can,
and 43 seconds later, he sees a painful bright light that is God. When He opens
the pearly gates for them, Jesus says, ‘I don’t belong here anymore,’ and walks

said, “While Jesus would never do that, nor would he engage in the terror
bombings of innocent women, men and children in Dresden, Tokyo, London,
Hamburg, etc., however, he would drop bombs on Iraqis and Afghans, although
that would have the foreseen effect of injuring and killing innocent persons,
including babies.”

said, “Since the murder of innocents is part of government’s modus operandi, as
the story of the Constitutional convention shows, those who would create,
maintain and perpetuate government cannot justly claim innocent ignorance of
such crimes.”

The Moral Answer – The ethical
force meets the criteria of a correct ethical theory.

            “A correct ethical theory must be
deontologically justified without regards to the ends. In addition two
pragmatic criteria should be met – 1. that the action is likely to produce good
results, and 2. that it is within your power,” Justice said.

the rulers is completely deontologically justified since you are ethically
justified in using appropriate force against criminals, taking into account the
seriousness of the crime. In view of the seriousness of government, deadly
force against the rulers is within the deontologically justified limits,”
Justice said.

            "The ethical force in case of
crimes in progress is the minimum force necessary to stop the criminals, taking
into account the seriousness of the crime. In view of the seriousness of
government, deadly force is within the deontologically justified limits. In
governmentÂ’s ferocious war against humanity, killing the rulers is necessary
for justice,” Justice said.

            “Killing the rulers promotes
justice, without considering its positive consequences. Killing the rulers is
something you can do,” Justice said. “Killing the rulers could have a positive
deterrent effect, especially on lower level rulers since they do not receive
the prestige, power and welfare that higher level rulers derive from their
positions. Hence, the deterrent effect is likely to be enhanced. Since you are
deontologically justified in killing all the rulers, you should consider all
you can safely kill without being injured or captured and without attacking
innocents,” Justice said. “To avoid injustice being committed by the partisans
against us, we should avoid giving signs of our loyalty to justice.”

            "But when the rulers abandon
their criminal activities and submit to justice, then the maximum ethical force
is that needed to administer punishment proportionate to their crimes and to
ensure full restitution to their victims," Justice said.

            "Each person who accepts the
responsibility of justice abides by the ethical force. Those who exceed the
ethical force are enemies of justice, regardless of what they claim – results
are the only basis to decide whether a person is achieving justice and acting
consistently with the principles of the ethical force," Justice said.

DOP arguments vs. the New Paradigm

            Roderick said, "Since killing
the rulers is terrorism, you are advocating terrorism and since terrorism is incompatible
with justice, the New Paradigm is incompatible with justice."

            Justice said, "In the New
Paradigm, the rulers are criminals and terrorism is defined as attacking
innocent persons to affect government. Hence, your claim, 'killing the rulers
is terrorism,' is false in the New Paradigm. Your argument uses DOP premises
that are refuted in the New Paradigm in your attempt to refute the New Paradigm
– a logical fallacy of circularity. Your argument fails what I call, 'the
Benson test,' in honor of my old logic professor."

            Roderick said, "But you are
claiming that Nagasaki and Hiroshima are examples of terrorism in your argument
refuting the partisanÂ’s views. Since, the partisan rejects these claims, aren't
you also guilty of circularity?"

            "I cited Nagasaki and Hiroshima
in the empirical test not to argue that these were terrorism and therefore add
support to my conclusion, but that the nuking to babies supports my conclusion.
My argument is simpler than you suppose. After moving to the New Paradigm, we
use the definitions in the New Paradigm, explaining how government puts us in
danger of terrorism," Justice said.

asked, “And what do you say to the families of the rulers after their loved
ones are killed?”

said, “Here, since it is important to avoid causing the families, especially
their children, any pain in their time of unspeakable grief, the friends of
justice must not in any way remind them that these rulers were criminals since
that would not be what they would want to hear. Instead, the friends should
console them and tell them truthfully that the dead rulers were killed while
they were doing, according to their beliefs, the right thing.”

said, “I agree. The friends should avoid taking advantage in any way that would
add to the sorrow of the rulersÂ’ innocent children, nor to remind them in any
way that the sooner the rulers give up their criminal ways the sooner they will
avoid such tragedies for other innocent children.”

decision-making maintains the status quo.

said, "If you do not like what government is doing, you should change it
by voting only."

said, "Casting one vote out of millions is a form of ineffective decision
making, decision making where your decision is not decisive. To engage in
ineffective decision-making is, in practice, to acquiesce to the status quo.”

            “Sure, one vote all by itself is a
long thin weak reed, but when combined with millions of others, it becomes a
bundle tied with string, it becomes a heavy club – powerful enough to make
people tremble. Your vote plus ten million other votes would make a

said, “You have one vote – more if you engage in ballot-stuffing, but you would
have to be one hell of a ballot stuffer to cast ten million and one votes.

the probability that your one vote would swing the election is vanishingly
small, if, lured by the illusion of power, you cast your vote with the
majority, your vote doesnÂ’t change the outcome. If you cast it with the
minority, again, it doesnÂ’t matter. It is a form of ineffective

you seriously believe that each personÂ’s vote should make a difference, the
obvious question is how could you change the election process so that, in fact,
each personÂ’s vote makes a difference, so that each person has effective
decision-making. Until you institute such reforms and I donÂ’t believe you could
do that, to engage in ineffective decision-making is, in effect, is to maintain
the status quo. Where you only exercise ineffective decision-making,
politically you don’t count – you’re a political spectator. Having or casting a
vote in no way implies that you abandon your right to justice, and hence, is
not a sufficient argument against the ethical force.”

said, “Numerous organizations such as Amnesty International, the American Civil
Liberties Union, organizations that oppose land mines and cluster bombs that
harm innocent people, and many others have been fighting the crimes of
government for a long time – this is the way to solve the problem.”

said, “In view of the government’s long rap sheet, I do not accept the
self-serving claims of these organizations of opposing governmentÂ’s crimes at
face value – after all, they do not adequately repudiate government.”

Alternative proposed solutions fail as correct ethical theories –

How many innocent people has your favorite president

            "I think you have made a
compelling case, but I want to present a different theory about how to deal
with the crime of government. I believe that the crimes you cited lead to the
conclusion that when a ruler commits serious crimes, you have an ethical
obligation to kill him," Roderick said. "But not the rulers who
haven't committed serious crimes. And when the rulers begin to murder innocents,
then we should kill them to stop their criminal activities."

            "The ample empirical evidence
that Justice has already cited shows government is a serious crime. You are
assuming without reason that that is not the case. Since Justice has fully
deontologically justified killing the rulers, refuting your view, I want to
then consider the consequences of your position,” Carol said. "If we wait
for government to begin committing genocides like the Holocaust, the Horror or
the Great Terrorism and then try to stop them, it will be too late. Some tried
to kill Hitler, but it was too late, and history books tell the whole story,
some protested the Horror, but couldnÂ’t prevent it. Some atomic scientists
tried to prevent Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but they were too late,” Carol said.

“Not on my watch!”

said, “In the TV show, ‘Early Edition’, the hero Gary Hobson receives
‘tomorrow's news today,’ and then goes around preventing some tragedy from
happening. Knowing the nature of government we can rationally understand that
the ‘Early Edition’ of the twenty-first century says, ‘Government murders
millions.Â’ Of course, unlike the TV show, no Gary Hobson exists in reality who
will solve the problem of government in the nick of time. And, we do not know
when or where or how or whose baby government will murder next.”

            "Through reason, we can
understand what the future victims of government want us to do to help. The
friends of justice accept a moral duty to achieve nostatism, and prevent these
crimes against them. But, failure on our part means millions will be murdered.
I don't know about you, but, with my mind, I can hear their pleas for
help," Armando said. “We couldn’t help the victims of the Holocaust since
we were not here at the time. We can truthfully say, ‘It didn’t happen on our

we are here now and we know that government is murdering innocents as we speak,
and as Justice explained, we can rationally understand that it will murder
millions if we hesitate and do nothing,” Armando said. “I don’t know about you,
but can we live with ourselves if we allow these crimes to occur on our watch -
on our watch?”

said, “While I admire your sentiments, I disagree with your view since bringing
anarchy and government out of existence is beyond your capacity. Hence, your
view does not fit with the practical criteria of the New Paradigm – that you
have effective decision-making, where your decision is decisive. Nostatism is
far beyond you capacity to achieve it, although it would result if everyone
follows the ethical principles of the New Paradigm. Since, it is beyond your
capacity to persuade and motivate everyone to follow the ethical principles,
nostatism plays no role in the New Paradigm.”

moral answer in perspective. The ethical force is a moderate force.

Stalin said, "I am religious and my religion teaches that justice
is the province of God, not man. We are never justified in using force against
a fellow human being; that would be for us to act like God."

            Justice said, "Now we have two
extremes - on the one side is government which murders people on a scale
otherwise unheard of in all history, and at the other extreme is the view
against any use of force for any reason, including justice."                                                                  

No Force                  The Ethical Force                     Government

            "The ethical force is a
moderate view between these extremes. Regardless of religious beliefs, we
cannot rationally rely on God for justice. However, I want to congratulate those
who completely reject force for rejecting government, but their views are not
guided by justice."

            Josephine said, “I believe we should
promote killing the rulers as a rite of passage for people who want to become
politically aware and effective decision makers.

PartisanÂ’ war theory refuted

the rulers without attacking innocents will be difficult, if not impossible.
They often surround themselves with innocent human shields. In view of
governmentÂ’s criminal nature and seriousness, we should make all reasonable
efforts to protect innocent persons, but that should not stop us from killing
the rulers. When they decide to use innocent human shields who are
unintentionally injured and killed, the rulers are guilty of their injuries or

the possibility that their children would be unintentionally injured or killed
in the process of killing the rulers – that would be an additional deterrent to
the rulers. Using the double-effect doctrine, for ethically legitimate ends of
self defense and the defense of other innocent persons, we may ethically commit
acts that have the unintended, but foreseen, effects of harming innocents.”

Justice for criminals and
safeguarding the innocent

            Carol said, “Where is justice for
these innocent children in your double effect theory? If these effects on
innocents are foreseen, the claim that they are unintended is false. If they
are foreseeable, then any claim of innocent ignorance is false. The reason I
reject your view grows out of my rejection of the partisan’s war theories – you
cannot achieve justice by committing injustice. Blaming the other side may be a
psychological defense mechanism, it doesnÂ’t change the fact that if you attack
innocents, you are a criminal. This is why the doctrine of double effect is not
a principle of justice.”

            Josephine said, “The killing of
children would be unintended collateral damage in the sense that it is not what
I want.”

            Carol said, “Then you are using the
word ‘unintended’ in a way that is different from the morally relevant way we
use the word. Terrorists calling the bombing of children ‘collateral damage’ –
that cannot justify it. Since their means involve the murder of children, their
means are criminal, regardless of the justness of the cause by itself. Always
remember that the ends do not justify the means – the means by themselves must
be ethical for an action to be ethical. That is why the doctrine of double
effect is not a principle of justice. We donÂ’t murder children because that
would be an injustice; those who do such things are enemies of justice –
regardless of what they say.”

            Josephine said, “We are ethically
justified to hold persons and corporations that voluntarily give aid and
comfort to government totally responsible for their actions, and to administer
justice to them.”

            “I agree that the stockholders of
corporations that give aid and comfort to government are guilty of serious
crime,” Justice said. “But, partisans who merely advocate government, even
though their views are morally repugnant, are within free-speech rights to do
so and may not ethically be punished, provided they donÂ’t cross the line by
acting on their morally evil beliefs.”

Are guns and religion criminal?

Roderick said, "CouldnÂ’t this argument about
governmentÂ’s criminal nature also be extended to apply to religions such as
Christianity since it causes many murders? WouldnÂ’t this very argument imply
that gun ownership is criminal since guns murder many people?"

"If my
argument logically implies such results, then I would accept them, but if it
doesn't, then I don't accept them," Justice said.

            Carol said, "I think these
cases are not equivalent. Some Christians do not engage in criminal activity or
join any criminal organizations. While they do pay taxes, they do it under
duress like other victims of government. And, some people own guns without
committing any crimes against society.           

"We need to distinguish ethically legitimate weapons from extreme
weapons. Ethically legitimate weapons are (1) weapons that can be used against criminals
without committing crimes against innocents, and (2) are owned and used by
persons or organizations who do not commit crimes against innocent persons,”
Carol said.

organizations are illegitimate.

weapons include nuclear weapons and other indiscriminate weapons, and guns that
are owned or used by persons or organizations that engage in criminal
activities. Organizations that commit crimes against innocents or own or use
extreme weapons are defined as extreme organizations.

distinction between legitimate and extreme organizations is based on the
distinction between crime and justice," Carol said. "Organizations
that use any weapons against innocents are extreme organization, and hence
criminal. All extreme organizations are criminal since they clearly threaten
innocent persons."

Can a sheep tell the wolves what
to do?

said, “You haven’t said much about what the rulers should do.”

            Justice said, “Some take the path of
Machiavelli and give advice to the prince, but I speak with the people. Some
write editorials in newspapers giving recommendations to the rulers. If these
writers really believe that giving their advice to government is the solution,
why donÂ’t they e-mail their editorials to it instead of publishing them in the

            “In fairness to these writers, I should say that
journalism professors teach students to emulate the writings of big newspapers
such as the Los Angeles Times where the sheep/wolf fallacy mars the editorial
pages. In their unsigned editorials, their writers frequently praise or blame
government officials, and give them advice, apparently unaware that the typical
L.A. Times reader is a sheep, not a wolf. The same fallacy crops up in their by-lined
editorials. When Kissinger, a Vietnam War foreign policy official, writes on
foreign affairs, giving advice to government officials, I wonder why he canÂ’t
send his advice to them. Or, won’t they accept his faxes anymore?”

“I pledge allegiance to justice.”

said, “The leaders of justice accept the ethical duty to promote ethical,
educational and cultural ideas that advance justice.”

Carol said, "As I raise the flag of
justice, which represents the best of humanity, I ask all who claim loyalty to
justice to face the flag and give a moment of silence to think of all the
victims of anarchy and government, especially all the babies whom it will
murder – if we do nothing – on our watch.”


Go to The Ends Do Not Justify
the Means, Part II, Understanding GovernmentÂ’s Criminal Nature, The Living
Archive of the Innocent Victims of Government and Government Related Violence


The author
makes no claim that these ideas are original. The author is Egyptian – the
racism of the U.S. government was a factor in the writing of this paper.



12-5-2002; Updated 2-20-2003


Copyright ©
2002, 2003 The Association of Future Philosophers


Return to Main Page of the
Journal of the Association of Future Philosophers