Skip to content

Entitlement and Exemption from Personal Responsibility on the Conservative Side

The attitudes of supremacy and entitlement are alive and well in America today, and it’s not just from the Left. Such attitudes can be seen in the administration of the death penalty, in the U.S. government’s wars, and the same-sex marriage issue as well.

To begin, there was an execution yesterday in Georgia of a woman, Kelly Gissendaner, who was convicted of arranging the murder of her husband who was murdered by Gissendaner’s boyfriend. Ironically, while Gissendaner was given the death penalty her murderer boyfriend got life in prison by way of a plea bargain. Because she didn’t actually do the killing, she should not have been given that ultimate penalty, in my view. Theoretically, only the one who actually committed the act should be given the death penalty. And I say “theoretically” because the agents of the State do not have the moral authority to administer such ultimate punishments. But I think there are just a lot of bloodthirsty employees of the State who don’t mind at all ordering or administering such punishments.

Those who supported this particular death sentence obviously don’t believe in the idea of personal responsibility. That is because, while Kelly Gissendaner did have her boyfriend murder her husband, she herself didn’t actually commit the murder. So in this case, even if one supports the State-perpetrated death penalty it certainly is not justifiable especially because Gissendaner did not directly cause her husband’s death. She did not actually kill him. Only those who actually commit some physical action are responsible for their actions, even if, in this case, Gissendaner asked the boyfriend to do it, or even if she paid someone to do it.

I compare this to Presidents who send soldiers to invade other countries and kill the people there and destroy their property. George W. Bush ordered the invasions and wars against Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001. And those wars (along with the previous war against Iraq started by Bush’s father in 1991) were not even justified because Iraq was of no threat to America either in 1991 or in 2003, and Afghanistan was also no threat to America. But, while criminally culpable, the Bushes were not the ones who committed the actual killing and destruction.

It was the actual soldiers who went in and murdered Iraqis, men, women and children, and the actual bomb-droppers who murdered innocent people. “Just following orders” or not, those who committed actual crimes against others are responsible for their own actions. Which is not to absolve the Bushes of criminal acts, as they used the armed monopoly power of the State to organize the actions against whole populations abroad. So deep down, those soldiers as individuals know when they are killing innocent people. Thus it’s no wonder there are so many soldier and veteran suicides each day, because their guilty consciences get the better of them, regardless of the military’s attempts to stifle such moral scruples.

Now, if you strongly disagree with all that, it’s because you probably have a distorted view of the facts of those cases, of the “War on Terror,” and 9/11, based on propaganda government bureaucrats gave us that was repeated without question by the robots of the mainstream media. And many people will say about the Iraqis and other foreigners, “But they’re terrorists!” when no, those people over there were merely responding to an invasion of their territory, by retaliating. It was the U.S. military who was the invader of foreign lands, not the other way around. (And no, such a U.S. military response to 9/11 was not moral nor legitimate, as the people of Iraq and Afghanistan were not responsible for 9/11.) Those people there in Iraq and Afghanistan had every right in the world to retaliate against the U.S. military’s invasion, just as Americans would do if U.S. territory were invaded, occupied, and the people’s homes destroyed and innocent Americans murdered by foreigners.

Unfortunately, there are millions of people in America with an “entitlement” mentality, and it’s not just those on the Left. Many of those who believe in the supremacist idea of “American Exceptionalism” really believe that America has some kind of inherent supremacy over other countries, and that Americans are entitled to go over to other territories, invade and occupy them and act criminally and murderously against foreigners. They base such supremacy on things such as their belief in God, the Bible, and the Founders’ beliefs as the Exceptionalists see them, and other rationalizations of immoral behavior toward others. So in their “American Exceptionalism” beliefs they are entitled to other peoples’ lands and resources, and are entitled to enter others’ property without permission, and entitled to violate the rights of others. And there will be those readers here who find all that absurd, especially the ones I am referring to. But of course those most in denial are those most indoctrinated of this American Exceptionalsim thing. But those who are more honest might begin to question their long-held beliefs. And some people might feel offended by my use of the word, “supremacist” even though that is exactly what it is. America is “supreme” over other countries and we can do what we want, we are above the law, and so on.

With this “American Exceptionalism” narcissism and entitlement is the exceptionalism, narcissism and entitlement of the State and its agents and enforcers. This is another reason why the State-perpetrated death sentence is immoral. Because of the many people who had been put on death row who were entirely innocent and those who were exonerated or whose cases had many holes in them yet were murdered by the State anyway. Many of the agents of the State have a supremacist attitude over the rest of us. Just read any of William Grigg’s articles on the police and prosecutors, or William Anderson’s articles on prosecutors, and you can see what I mean.

And I will conclude this with some comments on Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refuses to give same-sex couples marriage licenses, who is still in the news. Now there’s someone who has a sense of entitlement, in which even though she disagrees with her employer’s duties as assigned to her, she insists on remaining at that job, when the responsible thing to do would be to just get another job. Sure, she can claim that that assignment violates her own personal religious views, but she is acting as though the employer (the government) is obligated to bend the rules to serve her beliefs. No, the employee is obligated to do the job as assigned, and if she doesn’t like it, get another job.

Now, in the private sector, sure, some employers are flexible and there have been many instances of negotiating a compromise. However, in this case when the employer is the government, which is the law, she must act in accordance with the law. Again, if she doesn’t like that, she can get another job. And that’s notwithstanding that she, in her entitlement-minded arrogance, wants to use the legal apparatus of the government, the State, to interfere with the rights of others to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That’s what a lot of people who agree with her point of view want to do, use the State’s monopoly and legal apparatus to prevent same-sex couples from having a legally-valid marital contract which these obstructionists have no moral right to do. Many people just don’t see how immoral it is to use the power of government to act as the final decider of who may marry and who may not, when supposedly in these religiously-oriented people’s minds it is their church or their God who has the final say on that. At least that’s what they say. But true to their State-supremacist mindset, in reality they believe it is the government that ought to have the final say on how people may live their lives.

Published inUncategorized