- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
by William Stone, III
Thursday, Sep. 25, 2003 at 3:56 PM
email@example.com (712) 490-5344 P.O. Box 1967, North Sioux City, SD 57049
I invite one to examine the Constitution for language that authorizes the Federal Government to become involved in an individual's education. There is none. Evil, therefore, is any Congressman who voted (in willful violation of his Oath of Office) for any bill involving the FedGov with education.
willstone3rd.jpg, image/jpeg, 130x166
What Is Evil?
William Stone, III, The Sierra Times, September 24, 2003
I'm always surprised that I have so few critics -- or even people who have disagreements. This is probably a testament to the fact that most of my readership are Zero Aggression Principle devotees, and that they are by definition extremely intelligent.
There are basically two kinds of critics: the kind who have a knee-jerk emotional reaction and are so angry that they can't string together a coherent sentence, and the kind who have a thoughtful disagreement. The people who write to me are uniformly of the latter kind.
I'm fond of quoting seminal libertarian author L. Neil Smith, who once observed that people who intentionally take actions that are demonstrably harmful to others are either stupid, insane, or evil -- possibly all three.
In "Professional Paranoid, Part III," I applied this principle to elected officials at the Federal level who support the "war" on terror (more correctly, the "War on Freedom").
I believe that in the main, stupid people do not get elected to Federal office. In addition, aside from a large dose of power madness and a smattering of personality disorders, "insanity" does not apply to most elected officials -- e.g., they understand perfectly well that their policies are actively harmful.
The only remaining explanation is that they're unspeakably evil.
The thoughtful disagreement directed to me was:
"That misses the biggest and most plausible category: they couldn't care less about the harmfulness of the policy, and ceasing to do the harm would hurt them (loss of votes, annoyed campaign contributors, vulnerability to being 'smeared' by the opposition, etc). That isn't proactive 'evil', just selfishness, ambition, and a lack of conscience."
To an extent, this is absolutely correct. However, it set me to thinking:
How does one define "evil"?
Traditionally, "evil" has all sorts of religious connotations. It is inextricably bound with consorting with Satan and other such trappings. If you're a religious individual and wish to adhere to this kind of definition, I've certainly no objection. However, it's not my definition.
I define all basic morality in terms of the Zero Aggression Principle, specifically:
"No human being has the right -- under ANY circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."
Any activity that violates the ZAP is defined as "immoral." Any other action is "moral."
Does initiating force -- e.g. committing an immoral act -- make a person "evil"?
The Miriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com) definitions of "evil" that apply in this context are:
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS
By either definition, violation of the Zero Aggression Principle can be categorized as evil. It is morally reprehensible to violate the ZAP, and to do so typically causes harm.
However, in modern society, "evil" has emotional content that goes well beyond the emotion evoked by "causing harm" or being "morally reprehensible." It invokes images of slavery, concentration camps, rape, murder, and so on. It is an appellation generally reserved for the most hideous and reprehensible activities.
The question, then, is: is the conduct of Federally-elected officials reprehensible enough to deserve the emotional connotation "evil"?
I would argue that it is.
Let's take, for example, the average Congressman. Not the stupid ones who do what they do because they don't know the harm it causes, nor the insane ones who cause harm because they believe wrong is right. Let's examine the AVERAGE Congressman, who engages in his behavior because he wants power and doesn't care what he has to do in order to get it.
On taking office, Congressman Average placed his hand on a Bible and swore the following sacred Oath to God:
"I, Joe Average, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Now, let's take a universal issue in which all Congressmen believe the Federal Government should be involved: education.
I invite one to examine the Constitution for language that authorizes the Federal Government to become involved in an individual's education. There is none. It is, under the Constitution, not the purview of the Federal Government. Therefore, should Congressman Average vote for any bill that allows the FedGov to become involved with education, he will be in willful violation of his Oath of Office. He will be explicitly undermining the Constitutional prohibition against FedGov involvement in unauthorized activities.
So on the first level, Congressman Average has violated a sacred vow made to God. I'm not a religious individual, but if you are, think of the implications of that for a moment. Violation of a sacred oath made to God is literally on the same level as, say, violating the sacrament of marriage. If you're religious, Congressman Average's vote to involve the FedGov in education is a sin, and Congressman Average is likely to burn in Hell for all eternity for his actions.
If you're a religious individual, would you consider a person who would violate a sacred oath made to God "evil"? And what if he violated this oath not just on that one issue, but on virtually every issue that came before him?
>From a religious perspective, our Congressmen are evil because of their repeated and willful violations of an oath made not to man, but to God.
However, like me, you might not be a religious individual. It might be that you simply consider violating a sacred oath something totally consistent with the way most Congressmen operate: hypocritical at best. Can we still consider Congressman Average evil?
We can. Firstly, there's the ZAP issue: by voting to authorize the FedGov to become involved in education, Congressman Average has delegated the initiation of force. He has violated the ZAP, because government cannot so much as lay one brick atop another without stealing the money necessary to do so.
And again, it isn't just education in which Congressman Average has initiated force. There is almost nothing he does that does not involve initiating force, either explicitly or through delegation.
>From the perspective of the ZAP, a repeated, unrepentant initiator of force can only be one thing: evil.
But suppose you're neither a ZAP devotee nor a Constitutionalist nor religious. Can Congressman Average still be considered "evil"?
Yes, he can. FedGov involvement in education is quite clearly detrimental to education. Since the FedGov first involved itself in education, nothing it has done has ever made education better or more effective. It does nothing but harm the minds in its charge. Frankly, ANY government involvement in education is demonstrably harmful, but none more so than Federal involvement.
So Congressman Average is explicitly causing harm to other individuals. He knows it. He doesn't care.
He's evil, any way you look at it.
In the words of my critic, Congressman Average (and every other Congressman now in office) is so selfish, ambitious, and lacking of conscience that he doesn't care who he has to hurt in order to stay in power. He doesn't care if millions of young minds are ruined forever, unable to read, write, or perform simple arithmetic as a direct result of his power madness. Worse, he KNOWS they're being hurt -- he just doesn't CARE.
Again, it isn't just education. The litany of Unconstitutional, immoral, and outright harmful activities undertaken by government fills the day of every Congressman. Harmful, immoral, Unconstitutional activities exclude everything resembling the moral, Constitutional work they've sworn to undertake.
They know it. They just don't care.
William Stone, III (pictured above) is a South Dakota-based computer nerd (RHCE, CCNP), security consultant (CISSP http://www.wrstone.com/services/contact.html), and Executive Director of the Zero Aggression Institute (http://www.0ap.org). He seeks the Libertarian Party's nomination in 2004 for United States Senate.
Report this post as:
LATEST COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 6 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by the website visitors.
|Education is not evil
||Thursday, Sep. 25, 2003 at 5:31 PM
|Isn't it ironic...
||Thursday, Sep. 25, 2003 at 5:35 PM
|Zero Agression Policy
||Thursday, Sep. 25, 2003 at 5:59 PM
|And about his definition of "morality"...
||Thursday, Sep. 25, 2003 at 6:06 PM
|CUZ I'M A BAD Ass
||Friday, Sep. 26, 2003 at 10:30 PM
|nonanarchist lost his penis.
||Friday, Sep. 26, 2003 at 11:13 PM
Why Should California Choose De Leon Over Feinstein?
Change Links September 2018 posted
More Scandals Rock Southern California Nuke Plant San Onofre
Site Outage Friday
Change Links August 2018
Setback for Developer of SC Farm Land
More problems at Shutdown San Onofre Nuke
Change Links 2018 July posted
More Pix: "Families Belong Together," Pasadena
"Families Belong Together" March, Pasadena
Short Report on the Families Belong Together Protest in Los Angeles
Summer 2018 National Immigrant Solidarity Network News Alert!
Watch the Debate: Excluded Candidates for Governor of California
Change Links June 2018 posted
The Montrose Peace Vigil at 12 Years
Unity Archive Project
Dianne Feinstein's Promotion of War, Secret Animal Abuse, Military Profiteering, Censorshi
CA Senate Bill 1303 would require an independent coroner rather than being part of police
Three years after OC snitch scandal, no charges filed against sheriffs deputies
California police agencies violate Brown Act (open meetings)
Insane Company Wants To Send Nuke Plant Waste To New Mexico
Change Links May 2018
Worker-Owned Car Wash on Vermont Closed
More Local News...
Elder Aliyah to Israel, Like Abraham and Sarah
Paraphysique du microcosme macrocosme
September 2018 Honduras coup update
The Nation Unites Against Brian Kemp, Most Racist Secretary of State in US
The Nation Unites Against Brian Kemp, Most Racist Secretary of State in US
Paraphysique de l'ubérisation
22 Ways Trump Has Increased US Deficit By 4 to 5 Trillion Dollars
Debunking Some Anti-Prop 10 Propaganda
Plus d'hôpitaux, à bas les aéros
When Banana Ruled (documentary)
Outstanding Report By RAMOLA D &Dr.Tomo Shibata
Dark Clouds Gather on Horizon for Financial System, Warns International Monetary Fund
Fbi pure evil & immorality
Reality Check: Palestinian-Israeli Coexistence is a Big Lie
Voiceless Animals: 2018 Candidates They Oppose
IMF Lowers Global Growth Projections and Raises Concerns of Financial Crisis
Canitie, l'inhumanité vieillit
L'anarchie en quelques exemples
100 Ways GOP Have Stolen Elections Since 1876
Proximospective de l'univocité réifiée
Trump & Palestine vs. Genesis, Rashi & The Land of Israel
The Criminality of the Elites
Business de l'inhumanitaire
Marriage Rape/Date Rape Highest Rapes
Women I Know Get Raped - Too Many Times To Count!
Women In USA Have Stockholm Syndrom
More Breaking News...