|
The State is institutionalized, systematic violence.
Every professor of political science in every university on planet earth will agree that the fundamental nature (or most basic definition) of "civil government" (or "the State") is
Proof:
Mainstream scholarship is summed up in the Encyclopædia Britannica:
State monopoly on violence, in political science and sociology, the concept that the state alone has the right to use or authorize the use of physical force. It is widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the modern state.
In his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (1918), the German sociologist Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” The modern state, according to Weber, emerged by expropriating the means of political organization and domination, including violence, and by establishing the legitimacy of its rule.
|
The word "government" can be used in different ways.
In family, school, neighborhood association, and groups of all kinds, there is "government." When we obey "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," our society is orderly, peaceful, harmonious and well-governed. James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution," is reported to have said,
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
|
Every individual and every business and institution created by voluntary associations of individuals is morally obligated to be well-governed, and to respect the rights of others to life, liberty, and property. "Self-government" creates a society of "Liberty and Justice for all."
"Self-government" -- following the commandments of God -- is what it means to be human.
But "the government" ("the State") claims the right to seize the property of others by force, have those who resist beaten and raped, and kill all those who get in the way. "Self-government" is vitrue. "The government" is violence.
George Washington is reported to have said,
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. . . .
"Private" persons and businesses can only raise money by persuasion. A business can entice a customer to exchange his money for the goods and services produced by the business. A charity can persuade donors to give money voluntarily. But the State raises money through force and threats of violence
Political scientists and scholars in the field of political economy agree with George Washington. The essential feature of "the State" is its use of force to achieve its objectives.
Ludwig von Mises, the most influential political economist of the "Austrian" school of economics, gives us this definition of a "State":
The state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The characteristic feature of its activities is to compel people through the application or the threat of force to behave otherwise than they would like to behave.
|
Government Equals Force by James Bovard |
Suppose I come up to you and say, "If you murder anyone I'll kill you." I am compelling you through the application or threat of force to behave otherwise than you might like to behave; am I a "State?" Not necessarily; Mises continues his definition:
But not every apparatus of compulsion and coercion is called a state. Only one which is powerful enough to maintain its existence, for some time at least, by its own force is commonly called a state. A gang of robbers, which because of the comparative weakness of its forces has no prospect of successfully resisting for any length of time the forces of another organization, is not entitled to be called a state. The state will either smash or tolerate a gang. In the first case the gang is not a state because its independence lasts for a short time only; in the second case it is not a state because it does not stand on its own might. The pogrom gangs in Imperial Russia were not a state because they could kill and plunder only thanks to the connivance of the government.
Consider this question: under Mises' definition, and based on the account in Genesis 14, was Abraham a "State?" It would certainly seem so.
Paul (Romans 13:1) commands us to obey "the powers that be." How does this find expression in Genesis 14? Were there no "powers?" Was Abraham "the powers?" Was it a more complex situation? Was Abraham fighting "the powers" by fighting the "United Nations Peace-keeping Force," this demonic alliance of kings? It seems clear that in Abraham's life there was no earthly "State" outside of himself, and this situation is acceptable in the eyes of God. (Nevertheless, to advance our thesis, we will never call Abrahamic Patriarchies "states." "State" will be a term reserved for non-familial or supra-familial systems of social structure.)
"The State" is thus a group of individuals who can steal from and kill a selected target of people without expecting any other group to be willing or able to stop them.
Augustine, in his book City of God, wrote this:
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.
The essential point of this Thesis is that God in the Bible nowhere gives any individual or group the right to steal or kill, even if they call themselves "the State." Being a politician does not make taxation less theft, or war less murder.
When a business in the "free market" needs to raise money, it must use persuasion to entice the voluntary support of others. By contrast, when "the State" needs money, it takes it by force. This taking is called "taxation." (Other forms of taking, such as fractional reserve banking, asset forfeiture, and debasement of the currency, are also used. These "revenue enhancement" devices are, like taxation, also immoral.)
|
When the target refuses to "contribute" its money to "the State," the target is threatened with prison. Such threats are calculated to create "voluntary compliance."
"There Oughta Be a Law!"
Actually there already is a Law. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
Suppose Jones wants some extra money. He asks Smith for some money and Smith refuses. Jones threatens to lock Smith up in the Jones Basement for five years with a violent sociopath, who will beat and rape Smith every day for the next five years. Smith pays up. That this form of coercion is at the heart of the State's "criminal justice system" is seen in this opinion from the Los Angeles Times in June of last year (before any allegations of cooked-books or any other illegal conduct had been made against Enron):
|
The State claims the right to kill. The State is symbolized by the sword for this reason.
- a. "Trust No One" -- An American Ethos
- How do libertarians respond to the accusation that they do not have enough trust in government? John Adams wrote in 1772:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
Should libertarians have more confidence in their government? Thomas Jefferson, 1799:
Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
James Madison warned the people of Virginia (1799):
the nation which reposes on the pillow of political confidence, will sooner or later end its political existence in a deadly lethargy.
Madison added in Federalist No. 55,
[T]here is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust. . . .Trusting government, having "confidence in government," is un-American.
The British historian Lord Acton put it this way:
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
The exercise of political power is problematic. We should assume that "great men" -- that is, powerful men -- men who wield the force of "the government" -- are morally corrupt. This assumption should be considered confirmed if he increases his own power during his time of "public service."
- b. McManus/Gow letter
- c. Religion as "Private" = failure of public criticism of criminal acts by the State
- In the modern world, the State claims to be "neutral" with respect to religion. "Religion" is said to be "private." It is religion that says "Thou shalt not steal," and so by privatizing religion, the State avoids criticism based on its violation of Divine Law. Requiring the State to be "under God" is derided as "imposing religion on others," or violating a mythical "separation of church and state." Criticizing the State based on religion is (conveniently) undignified and inappropriate.
- 1. "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
- 2. The Myth of "Private Religion"
- d. Hodge: Moral Revulsion
- This thesis is not rooted in hedonism or antinomianism. Our desire to abolish the State is motivated by the fact that (to adapt the words of Princeton professor A.A. Hodge in 1887) the State is
the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.[*]
In particular, the State engages in more theft, murder, and kidnapping than any other group of people, including the criminals from which the State promises to protect us. The State is, without close competition, the greatest thief and mass murderer on the planet. The 20th century, marked by the final destruction of Christian localism and the rise of the secular State, has been the century of mass death on a scale unparalleled in human history.
[*] A.A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, Phila: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1887, p. 280, quoted in R.J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1963, p. 335. Hodge was referring to the government-run school. But all of government, as propagator of law, is an educator. See R. Lerner, “The Supreme Court as Republican Schoolmaster,” 1967 Sup. Ct. Rev. 127. Legal systems educate the masses. They set the agenda for private citizens (see "private religion," above)
There are several features of a well-governed society. All of them require attitudes of service. None of them require theft, violence, or threats of force.
A well-governed person, who yearns for a well-governed society, wants to place firm limits on "the government."
But can there be too many limits on "the government?" What if the chains of the Constitution strangle "the government" or "the government" is abolished all together?
I believe this would be a good thing.
"But wouldn't that be anarchy?" some might ask.
If you equate "anarchy" with "lawlessness." then "anarchy" is a bad thing. But if you understand that "anarchy" means "the absence of archists," then your next question should be, "What is an archist?" Keep reading on this page if you want to learn more about "law" and "lawlessness," or click the link below to find out why good and moral people are against "archists."
Free Market Dispute Resolution Organizations
I realize that's a totally goofy-sounding thing to say. I used to believe the Bible was against "anarchy." "Anarchy" is a bad word. "Anarchists" are bad people. I've always thought that.
I now believe that the Bible is an "Anarchist Manifesto." I now believe the Bible says -- from cover to cover -- that "archists" are the bad guys, not "an-archists."
Let's begin with three basic moral principles:
Rule #2 means "Taxation is theft."
"Taxation" is unconsented theft and aggression. It is the moral equivalent of extortion. It is a threat of violence upon failure to "fork over the dough."
Rule #3 means:
Rule #3 also means that followers of the executed Christ are "pacifists."
Governments are created to evade Rules #1 and #2 and #3.
If a group of people are not taking people's stuff and threatening to hurt people, they are not a "government." Maybe they are a "Rotary Club," but the core definition of a "State" is a "monopoly of violence."
Obviously, since the Bible prohibits violence and theft, the Bible prohibits "government."
Since the Bible commands us to be pacifists, the Bible commands us to "submit" or "be subject to" evil, like cheek-slappers, tax collectors, and centurions.
But when Jesus says "Resist not evil," He does not mean "evil" is good. Evil is evil, but we are commanded to submit to it without returning evil for evil.
When Paul tells the Romans "Bless those who persecute you" (Romans 12:14), he is not saying that persecutors are a "divine institution" and have God's permission to persecute Christians, and will not be judged or condemned by God for beheading believers, but will be rewarded for being God's "servants" or "ministers."
Evil people "serve" God's purposes even by sinning. These "servants" will be condemned and judged by God for doing the evil things that "serve" God's purposes.
There is no verse in the Bible that anyone alive today can use to prove that it's OK for them to become "the State" and to tax people and threaten violence against people.
Verses that command us to be pacifists and "be subject to" taxes and military invasions do not prove that military invasions are ethical or moral or do not result in God's wrath and condemnation of the invaders and the tribute collectors.
As as pacifists, we obey them all, no matter how tyrannical, and we do not resist them. (Of course, "we must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). It is not a sin to be taxed, but it is a sin to commit violence against someone, even if you're "just following orders.")
It is a sin to "govern" people. All governments are under God's wrath and condemnation. There is not a single exception. We should abolish all governments by exhorting archists to repent.
See how simple this is?
This is really simple to understand, but initially it is hard to accept.
It is hard to accept that you've been brainwashed, and you're a victim of educational malpractice.
It will be hard to accept the idea that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
It will be hard to accept the idea that such a simple concept that yields peace and prosperity is opposed by a complex rationalization that leads to tyranny, poverty, and mass death.
Continue reading only if you need more explanation.
Definitions:
I would like to prove to you that
The State is institutionalized, systematic violence.
Every professor of political science in every university on planet earth will agree that the fundamental nature (or most basic definition) of "civil government" (or "the State") is
Proof:
If you don't have taxation, you don't have "civil government." A society without "taxation" is a society without "the State."
Therefore, the opponent of violence is an opponent of "the State." The logically consistent pacifist says that "the State" should not exist.
Governments exist because God creates them to punish evil.
God created the psychopathically violent empire of Assyria to punish Israel (Isaiah 10).
God created the empire of the Medes to punish Babylon (Isaiah 13).
Nebuchadnezzar was God's "servant/minister" to take Judah captive (Jeremiah 25-27).
The Christian pacifist would say that those who defend the violent monopoly of the State are sinning against God.
Every "government" in the history of the world has eventually banned the Bible, believing it to be an Anarchist Manifesto, which it is. Even the government of the United States makes it illegal for public school teachers to endorse or promote the Bible as a divine revelation.
Every Christian is a "Pacifist."
Every Pacifist is an Anarchist.
"Anarcho-Capitalism" is 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism with 0% Socialism/Communism/Fascism/Keynesianism.
Some church-goers insist that we MUST have SOME socialism. 100% capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) is sinful, they insist.
They would concede that we might be permitted to have a free market in computers, cars, housing, clothing and groceries, but there are some goods or services which MUST NOT be provided by businesses or non-profit organizations which are freely chosen by consumers. An "oligarchy" (a small group of men relative to the size of consumers) must have a monopoly in the provision of these goods and services, without any competition. Consumers must not have a choice. Anyone going into business to provide these goods and/or services in competition with "the government" must be threatened with physical violence and driven out of business.
Of course, if someone goes into business to compete with YOUR business, you are not allowed to threaten your competitors with physical violence in order to drive them out of business. Your only recourse is to serve your customers on a higher level than your competitors.
You may consider your competition as your "enemy," but Jesus commands you to love your enemy and serve consumers at the highest level.
Anarcho-Capitalism is economic pacifism.
Point #3 means it is immoral not only to take vengeance by your own hand, but immoral to hire a contract killer or "hit man."
Would this not also mean it is immoral to "vote" for a vengeance-taker?
Instead of "voting" for vengeance-takers, shouldn't we exhort vengeance-takers (and those who voted for them) to repent of vengeance-taking, and leave vengeance to God (Romans 12:19-21)?
But wouldn't these three obvious Biblical points logically result in the abolition of all "civil governments?"
Some will say that this line of thinking -- taking these verses literally -- would lead to "anarchy," so this line of argument cannot be true because "everybody knows" that anarchy is bad, and "everybody knows" that the Bible commands all human beings to create and maintain "civil governments."
Does it really?
Suppose I had supernatural powers of persuasion, and while your back was turned, I persuaded every human being on planet earth to repent of vengeance-taking and repent of funding acts of vengeance through "taxation" (which is the moral equivalent of theft, violating point #2 above). In other words, all politicians repented, abdicated, completely abolished "the public sector," and got real jobs in "the private sector." No "civil governments" were left on planet earth. Human beings lived in a social condition which economist Murray Rothbard called "anarcho-capitalism."
What Bible verse can you point to to prove that this stateless society is sinful, and needs to vote for vengeance-takers and tax-collectors?
What Bible verse would you point to
to prove that any human being
has the moral authority to take money from other people by force or threats of violence ("taxation")
and use that money to fund acts of vengeance?
What Bible verse would you point to
to prove that any human being
has a moral obligation to "vote" for someone to take money from other people by force or threats of violence ("taxation")
and use that money to fund acts of vengeance?
I would say it is a sin to create a monopoly of violence. I would say Christians have a moral obligation to abolish all governments (using persuasion, not violent revolution). We should leave "government" to God.
As it stands right now (before I initiate my program of supernatural mass persuasion), we do not live under "anarcho-capitalism." Suppose instead of advocating "anarcho-capitalism," I told you that God wanted ME to be your king, and I told you that you need to pay me "tribute" or "taxes."
You would reply that I am not your king, and you are not under my jurisdiction. You are a citizen of another kingdom: "The United States of America."
That's the wrong answer, from a Biblical perspective, for several reasons.
The first thing you should say is that you are a citizen of Christ's kingdom, which is the only morally legitimate government. You should tell me to repent of being an "archist" and become a citizen of Christ's "holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9). Why would you say I am not your governor because Joe Biden is, rather than saying I am not your governor because God is?
The second thing you should say is that I have no verse of Scripture to support my claim that I have a right to engage in extortion to fund acts of vengeance. There is no verse of Scripture which any human being anywhere on planet earth today can point to and say "This verse gives me the right and moral authority to engage in extortion of taxes to fund acts of vengeance. This verse proves that I can kill my enemies and take your money to pay for it. Plus, this verse proves that if anyone else tries to take vengeance on their enemies and fund their vengeance-taking through extortion, I can initiate force against them and threaten them with physical violence for trying to compete against me and undermine my monopoly of violence." Not one verse can legitimately be used to support the creation of "the State," a monopoly of violence.
This is why every government on earth agrees that The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto.
I might reply that while Donald Trump's government takes more than 2/3 of everything you earn. I, as your king, would demand much less. You would be a better steward of the resources God has entrusted to you by being subject to my tax collection instead of Trump's.
You would reply that Trump's army is bigger than mine, and you and I would be crushed if we didn't pay them their extortion.
True point. But surely might does not make right.
What makes the State right? What gives Caesar the right? Why should all Americans rise up, like America's Founders did in 1776, and declare our independence, and demand that everyone who gets a paycheck from "the Public Sector" resign and get a real job in the private sector?
You truly do not realize how ironic your allegiance to the United States is. It vastly exceeds the allegiance your government has for you.
But you resist abolishing the U.S. government and allowing anarcho-capitalism to thrive because you believe "government" is good. Even though America's Founders -- who abolished their own government in 1776 -- would be horrified at how lawless, tyrannical, and anti-theistic your government is. Abolishing "civil government" is dangerous, unpatriotic, and somehow unBiblical, you believe.
What Bible verse gives people calling themselves "the U.S. Federal Government" the right to exercise political sovereignty over your state?
What Bible verse gives people calling themselves your "state government" the right to exercise political sovereignty over your county?
What Bible verse gives people calling themselves your "county government" the right to exercise political sovereignty over your city?
What Bible verse gives people calling themselves your "city government" the right to exercise political sovereignty over your neighborhood?
What Bible verse gives your neighbors the right to exercise political sovereignty over your family?
(For the words "exercise political sovereignty" think: "send the tanks," "send armed marshals," "taze, handcuff, and imprison." Ultimately, put you to death.)
Every civil magistrate -- every monopoly of violence -- eventually declares outright war on God and the Bible, just as the United States of America has banned the Bible from its established church, the public school system.
But if you reject my claim to be your sovereign to whom you owe taxes, why do you accept the claim of Joe Biden to be your sovereign? And, again, which verse in the Bible gives "The United States of America" the moral right to tax you to fund acts of vengeance, violence, and promotion of atheism, homosexuality and abortion?
Imagine an anarcho-capitalist society, living on an uncharted island in the Pacific, unknown to any current government, population 144,000. There are 12 families in this society. Each family is headed by a very Godly patriarch like Abraham, Noah, Job, the Prophets or the Apostles, or Godly kings like Hezekiah or Josiah. Just as Abraham had as many as 12,000 people in his "household,"1 each of these 12 families are equally large. You would agree it is the most just society in human history -- except for one thing.
There is no "civil government."
Whenever there is a crime, it is adjudicated following the principles Jesus laid out in Matthew 18:15-17, and the appropriate Biblical response to that crime is executed by the island's family heads, and judges are chosen on a Free Market basis, if they are needed.
But there is no "civil government." No monopoly of violence. No tax collectors. "Anarcho-capitalism."
Where is the verse which says
that someone has the moral right to demand that this patriarchal society
vote for him to be the "civil magistrate," and empower him to seize property
to fund acts of vengeance, and threaten violence against competitors?
Which verse says Caesar was morally justified in invading and conquering Israel, and putting Israel under tribute?
When Jesus said, "Resist not evil," "Go the second mile," and "Render unto Caesar," He was de-legitimizing violent revolution by the "Second Amendment" crowd of His day, who wanted to take up
swords against conquering invaders, but He was not legitimizing conquest, murder, and enslavement by archists like Caesar.
And beyond that, where is the verse which says that someone
has the moral right to say to Abraham or Noah or Job or any Godly family head,
"You may no longer administer justice. I have a monopoly on the provision of legal services,
and I will enforce my monopoly with violence."
Why is it insufficient to be a citizen of the "holy nation" mentioned in 1 Peter 2:9 (see also Philippians 3:20).
People who are not anarchists and pacifists silently condone the killing and destruction of tens of millions of people, and the atheistic indoctrination of those that remain alive. They deny that Jesus is the only legitimate Archist.
Think about one of those dull statistics above: Today the U.S. drops a bomb somewhere every 12 minutes on average.
Imagine that someone detonates one of these bombs in your neighborhood. Down the street a bit, so that the only damage that is done to your house is maybe some particulate matter is dropped on your lawn. No big deal, right?
Are you kidding? Your house would be rocked, even if not damaged. You would look out the window in horror to see several of your neighbors' homes in rubble. Every decent and humane psychologist would say you have experienced the kind of trauma that one experiences through the death of a spouse or child. Not only would your house be rocked, but your whole world (psychologically speaking) would be rocked. "What is going on in our world?"
The U.S. government does this to millions of people every year.
The people in Washington D.C. are sociopaths.
The people in your city ("law enforcement") who enforce the diktats of the violent atheistic federal government are also sociopaths.
If you are not an anarcho-pacifist, you are experiencing a form of PTSD without realizing it.
Suppose I was born on the same day as your son, and your son and I are both 22 years old.
In a fit of anger, I murder your son.
You cite Genesis 9:4-6 for the proposition that my blood should be shed:
Genesis 9:4-6 -- Blood must be shed
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
But suppose you don't know that I was the one who murdered your son. Nobody knows this. It's an unsolved homicide. Should you urge your civil government -- and its Levitical priests -- to follow Deuteronomy 21:1-9?
Deuteronomy 21:1-9 -- Blood must be shed in cases of Unsolved Homicide
5And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the Name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: 7Then they shall answer and say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. 8 Provide atonement, O LORD, for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people Israel.” And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood. 9 So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD.
To my knowledge, no Christian advocates the literal observance of this law. Here's why.
Suppose I confess to the murder, and can supply evidence to back up my confession.
Should Numbers 35:33 be followed?
Numbers 35:33 -- Blood must be shed in cases of a Solved Homicide
33 So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.
Should my blood be shed?
Who should shed my blood?
You?
You and your neighbors?
People calling themselves "the civil government?"
Since I provided the evidence against myself, and testified against myself, should I shed my own blood?
What if people calling themselves "the civil government" refuse to prosecute me, or a jury of my peers refuses to convict me, but I believe my blood needs to be shed to cleanse the land (Hebrew, כָּפַר kaphar, make atonement, Strong's #3722) Should I shed my own blood?
What if you believe that only the blood of Jesus can cleanse the land of the shedding of innocent blood (which I shed).
Should people calling themselves "the civil government" threaten to hurt you if you don't pay (be taxed) for "executioners" to shed my blood, even if you don't want my blood shed?
Suppose I murder your son and I am Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the world, and I promise to become your slave for life, and pay you $100 million a year for the rest of my life out of the money I earn at Amazon.com. Suppose you want the proceeds of my forced labor more than my shed blood? Should people calling themselves "the civil government" threaten to hurt you if you don't pay (be taxed) for "executioners" to shed my blood, even if you don't want my blood shed?
These are the questions every society must answer:
