The issue is whether the state has the ultimate power to decide who lives and who dies. The persistence of capital punishment affirms that the state has the power to put people to death and, if it does, then it's logical that it should also be able to determine who lives.
The assertion that government is merely being responsive to the demands of certains sects of organized religion is a subterfuge, a way of saying "it's not us that's telling you what to do; we're just the agents of a higher being."
You may think that the role of government is to do the people's bidding, to be public servants. That's not how those who govern see it. From their perspective they have been "selected" to tell others what to do and, in particular, to tell them to do things they don't want to do on their own.
Now, there are two ways to get people to do what they don't want to do on their own volition. You can threaten them with punishment, if they don't obey, or you can bribe them with a promise of rewards. Needless to say, threats are cheaper. But, if a threat is to have any meaning, it has to be backed up with the ultimate threat, to deprive a recalcitrant individual of life itself.
Death to those who do not do as they are told is entirely consistent with the position of those who adhere to the philosophy of limited government. What it means is that the least possible effort is to be expended to get people to comply with directions--i.e.control is maintained by threatening survival.
Of course, the threat is much less powerful, if not vitiated entirely, if people can decide for themselves who lives and who dies. That's why suicide is against the law. Even when suicide is permitted to be "assisted," that's still consistent with the assertion that the authority of the state is determinative. When a state grants a permit, it asserts the power to withhold it and, if the covered behavior occurs without a permit, to punish the culprit.
When our Constitution states that all powers not specifically assigned to government are retained by the people, it doesn't mean the individual person. It just means they haven't been specifically assigned YET. If esential rights were personal, there would be noone without them, such as minors or incompetents.
It would take a significant ammendment of the Constitution to recognize the equal, human rights of every person--equal not just to every other person but to the state itself.
Taking away the authority of the state to make life and death decisions about the people within its jurisdiction would be truly revolutionary. Because, once tasted, authority is not likely to be relinquished lightly.
Just think, there would be no more executive privilege.
Posted by Hannah at March 21, 2005 08:34 AM