“Support for capital punishment, a fundamental index of civilization”

This is a very interesting quote especially given the rise in the figures over the last two years in the U.S..,

Are we really to think that the U.S. has increased in civility by difference of 65 to 74%? Or that there could be such a wild swing in the space of a mere two years? Or that the U.S. is generally less civilized than countries with a higher approval rate, such as Afghanistan. ( which doesn’t appear to have shown marked improvement since Marco Polo last visted?

The culture of death which has a strangle hold on the U.S. would seem to be just as likely a cause as for the rise in approval of the death penalty in the U.S.; or perhaps the general approval of the populace for the complete abrogation of natural and civil liberties by the U.S. government, as exemplified in the “Patriot Acts”.

And given the liberal use of the death penalty http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM by less than civilized countries, ( although it is somewhat difficult to know the extent of general approval by the populace, the governments were certainly much in favor of the death penalty ), are we to now say these governments score high on the civilization index, and were contrary to all other evidence very civilized?

“the culture of death”? What’s that all about?

When I say that the death penalty is a fundamental index of civilization, I obviously do not mean that all countries that have the death penalty are civilized, any more than I would say that all countries that have literacy are civilized; some Communist tyrannies, for example, have had universal literacy. Yet literacy is nevertheless a fundamental index of civilization.

What I meant to say is that the death penalty is an indispensable feature of civilization. The death penalty shows that a society takes right and wrong, life and death, seriously and will punish murderers by taking their own life. It bespeaks a society’s knowledge that civilization is not a vacation spa but a ship afloat on a sea of barbarism—barbarism which can, in the final analysis, only be effectively suppressed by the organized use of force.

But today’s paleo-libertarians, in order to justify their radical hostility to the state and its monopoly on force, imagine (just like the left) that man is essentially good and that the state and its power are not needed to secure a civilized existence. This is another example of the liberal rebellion against the father. The liberal (or the paleo-libertarian or the paleoconservative) starts to see his “father”—i.e. his own country and its power—as inherently oppressive, so by reaction he starts to identify with the opposite and enemy of his country, e.g. with Nazis, Communists, or terrorists. Therefore he has to start claiming that Nazis, Communists and terrorists are really good, or at least not so bad. This phenomenon has been seen over and over on today’s paleo and antiwar right.

I would agree that large scale use of the death penalty suggests barbarism, and its use by a formerly civilized but now decadent country might suggest a culture of death. On the other hand, its abolition suggests either a poorly-rooted utopianism (as in Czarist and revolutionary Russia) or a rejection of the autonomy and moral answerability of individuals. In Europe they’ve gotten rid of it because they believe we should all be managed and taken care of by the totally administered state. If something goes wrong, the fault is really that of our keepers. So over-use of the death penalty is a bad sign for civilization, but so, I think, is its abolition.

Reply to Mr. Auster,

I agree with you that forfeiture as a consequence of wrong acts is a requirement for civilization, and conversely, those who would deny forfeiture also deny a fundamental tenant of civilization. I was simply pointing out that support of forfeiture is a very unreliable index because the reasons for support can just as likely be for uncivil reasons as for civil ones.

And as Mr. Kalb so nicely added to my comment, since the U.S. gives every indication of uninterrupted degeneration back into the grossest of paganism and its vice, I see little reason to credit increased support of the death penalty as an increased support for civility. And so I think we should look for it cause elsewhere than a increase in civility.

And consequently I don’t think in this instance that popular U.S. support for the death penalty is a reliable index proving greater civility in comparison with Europe. I also don’t think that Europe is refusing to hand over suspected murderers to the U.S. because of a rejection of the principle of forfeiture, but because Europe doesn’t expect or trust the current U.S. administration to act responsibly.

Although I’ve never read or known any Paleos who deny the principle of forfeiture, I can certainly understand their reluctance to expect the State to treat the principle properly and to act on it properly. This is not because the principle is contrary to the nature of the State, but because vice disorders men’s acts; and as the U.S. becomes more disordered so likewise will the State become less capable of acting on the principle properly.

Nor do Paleos deny fallen nature, but quite to the contrary support much of their theories out of this basic understanding.

And I must add, your sticking the Paleos with your father rejection theory is just plain silly and unsupportable, as is likewise your last comments on Nazis Communists and terrorists.

“[S]ince the U.S. gives every indication of uninterrupted degeneration back into the grossest of paganism and its vice, I see little reason to credit increased support of the death penalty as an increased support for civility.”

I disagree. I think the general support for the death penalty arises from the fact that to a much greater degree than in other Western societies, Americans still believe in God and objective morality. F. Salzer, as he has shown repeatedly at VFR, despises America so much that he is unable to see what is good about it.

“I also don’t think that Europe is refusing to hand over suspected murderers to the U.S. because of a rejection of the principle of forfeiture …”

That is untrue. The countries that said they wouldn’t hand over terrorists to the U.S. explicitly said it was because the U.S has the death penalty.

“Although I’ve never read or known any Paleos who deny the principle of forfeiture …”

Joseph Sobran is against capital punishment, stemming from his anarchistic belief that any use of force by the state is wrong. Paul Craig Roberts is also now very critical of the death penalty. Opposition on the right to the death penalty seems to be progressing step by step with antiwar sentiments.

“as the U.S. becomes more disordered so likewise will the State become less capable of acting on the principle properly.”

What F. Salzer doesn’t understand, because of his total dislike of America, is that despite its massive cultural and moral flaws, America is currently far more moral in its attitudes and public actions than most other Western countries.

“And I must add, your sticking the Paleos with your father rejection theory is just plain silly and unsupportable, as is likewise your last comments on Nazis Communists and terrorists.”

I agree that the phenomenon of fury against one’s own society due to a lost sense of filiation is more typically found on the left. However, I have seen distinct signs of it among individuals on the antiwar right as well.

To Lawrence Auster,

Please DO NOT make irresponsible statements like “F. Salzer, as he has shown repeatedly at VFR, despises America”.

The statement is False, NOT True, completely Wrong, without any basis, and extremely upsetting because it puts my children and wife at risk.

Some idiot might actually take your absurd statement seriouly. Plese desist from making such wild accusations.

Have I made my point clear enough?

If F. Salzer doesn’t want to be thought of as someone who despises America and everything it does and everything it stands for, he should go back and read the various unrelentingly negative comments about America and Americans that he has made at VFR. These would range from his present description of America’s “uninterrupted degeneration back into the grossest of paganism” (a statement that reveals an utter blindness to the very strong moral and Christian elements which not only still exist in America despite its pagan elements, but which are increasing), back to his earlier statement that America deserves whatever terrorist violence is done to it and doesn’t have the right to defend itself. Then he could perhaps think about whether he wants to go on making such sweepingly hostile and negative statements about America in the future. The language “despises America” is tough, but it is certainly not “completely wrong,” “without any basis,” “absurd,” or “wild.” Moreover, F. Salzer’s negative view of America is directly relevant in the present discussion because his point is that America does not at present have the moral legitimacy to practice capital punishment. However, in the interests of not upsetting F. Salzer unduly, I will, as he requests, desist for the remainder of this discussion from saying that he despises America.

I think the death penalty is justified because the constitution states if a person takes another persons life then his life shall be taken in return.