"Do not be annoyed at my telling the truth; the fact is that no man in the world will come off safe who honestly opposes either you or any other multitude, and tries to hinder the many unjust and illegal doings in a state."
Thus spoke Socrates during his own defense, while standing trial for his life in 399 B.C. The great philosopher was accused of corrupting the youth and believing in gods in whom the State did not.
Bad move.
The trial of Socrates lasted but a single day, at the close of which the fearless Athenian iconoclast was found guilty by a vote of 281 to 220... and sentenced to death by a vote of 361 to 140.
Swift legal proceedings, sure... but swift justice? (Read Plato's
account of the trial here and decide for yourself.)
As history reminds us all too often, it's no easy thing being an "enemy of the State." The reader can think of a dozen lives either made miserable or cut down entirely, owing to the victims' proclivity for questioning and/or undermining the prevailing authority of the day.
From the Nazarene to Gandhi, MLK to
Politkovskaya, and countless more besides, those who dare examine the "
statist quo" are in for a rough ride, if they are lucky... a short one, if they are not.
Just ask modern day Public Enemy No. 1: Julian Assange.
The Wikileaks founder is perhaps the most famous (or infamous, depending on whom you ask) whistleblower of all time. His organization has spent the past few years shining light on government secrecy and exposing
actual crimes committed by various States.
This it did by releasing to the public hundreds of thousands of pages of leaked documents including the
Iraq War Logs,
Global Intelligence Files and files on the developing situations in
Syria,
Guantanamo Bay and
Afghanistan, to name just a few.
The State's case against Assange and his organization brings into high relief the meaning behind that old adage, "Don't shoot the messenger."
But that's exactly what many apologists for the State wish to do. So potent is the hysteria surrounding Assange and his Wikileaks organization that public calls for the man's murder are, frighteningly, not at all uncommon.
"He should be killed," urged Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, who took it upon himself to unilaterally declare Assange "guilty of sabotage, espionage and crimes against humanity."
Wishing to appear neither thoughtful nor levelheaded by comparison, Tom Flanagan, former advisor to the Canadian president, opined, "I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something."
Never mind that Assange has yet to be convicted of a single crime in any court anywhere in the world. Nor has he even been formally charged. But for Peters, Flanagan and their ilk, the verdict is simply a foregone conclusion. To them, the man's execution should be nothing more than a formality... a "contract," as members of the common mafia might have put it.
In this age of increasingly decentralized information, the debate regarding government secrecy and the public's right to know what is being done in its name (and with its tax dollars) is truly a hot-button topic. And it is against this controversial, emotionally charged backdrop that a curious and troubling tendency has come to infect the public discourse, namely, the conflation of the terms "Law" and "Justice."
Most folks consider these terms to be near synonyms - not realizing perhaps the greatest inhumanities that Man has ever committed against fellow Man have taken place according to "the Law."
So the conflation of "Law" and "Justice" represents more than a mere transgression of semantics, dear reader, more than a "benign misnomer." Rather, it is a dangerous practice that baptizes all manner of
injustice as "perfectly legal."
In other words, injustices flourish when the perpetrators of injustice can smuggle their deeds into the vast and expanding body of arbitrary opinion known as "the Law."
While it may be true that the former is
supposed to represent the latter - i.e., that the Law ought to
embody Justice - oftentimes, this is simply not the case. Indeed, when evil people author laws, it is only by accident or mistake that they coincide with justice at all.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., makes our point for us. When asked his opinion regarding Assange, he replied, "I think the man is a high-tech terrorist. He needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and, if that becomes a problem, we need to change the law."
The law, according to McConnell, ought to be whatever provides the least resistance to his own whims and desires... not something that protects those who would challenge the system or bring to light the criminal actions of its adherents.
Underscoring this sentiment, syndicated columnist Bob Beckel told Fox News: "[Assange] is a traitor and a treasonist [sic] and he's broken every law of the United States. The guy ought to be... well, I'm not for the death penalty, so if I'm not for the death penalty, there's only one way to do it: Illegally shoot the son of a bitch."
The double standards at play here are breathtaking. What passes for "patriotic enthusiasm" when exhibited by lieutenants and senators is ordinarily recognized as "incitement to murder" when committed by members of the general populace.
Not that the State doesn't boast a rich historical penchant for hypocrisy. As the 19th century French scholar and author of
The Law, Frédéric Bastiat, reminds us, "It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds."
Of course, moral bankruptcy is not the only cost of State-sponsored injustice. The financial burden is also significant.
To date, the U.K. government has spent £6.9 million ($11.7 million) in guarding the Ecuadorian embassy, where Assange has taken refuge for the past two years. According to
one website, that's the equivalent of roughly 5.7 million meals for the needy... or 27,000 hospital beds.
It may well be one of the most expensive government stakeouts ever conducted. And for what?
During his trial, Socrates famously declared the unexamined life not worth living. The unexamined State, we hasten to add, is not worth living under.
Cheers,
Joel Bowman
for Free Market Café
Follow Joel on Twitter
@JoelBowman 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.