Originally posted on Dec 8, 2003The conservative answer to the dilemma is stated in a single word. The liberal on the other hand wouldn't live long enough to complete the train of what we'll politely refer to as thought.
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .45 and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
When I used to write for The Resister I wrotea feature called the "Moral Decision Game," in which the would-be patriot insurrectionist had to deal with an anticipated moral problem. The situation that I presented in the proposal (published as MDG#0) for the feature involved unarmed pro-socialist demonstrators blocking a choke point. (When I showed MDG#0 to my landlady she asked me how she was supposed to clean the blood and gunk off of the tank treads.)
My answer to anyone who would claim that shooting the assailant in the problem presented by the editors of Human Events is a violation of the right to life of the assailant is that the right to life is the right to live a human life. the life of a rationial and productive individual. It is not a right to behave as a subhuman animal. A right is a concept and as such can only apply to those who understand (or in the case of children, can be expected to learn) the concepts and adhere to them. Those who choose to act like animals have surrendered any claim to any human right.