Ripped from the pages of Blogodidact:
Jay Carney’s vicious, blood thirsty comment: “If even one child’s life is saved…”
“JAY CARNEY: If these things were easy, they would have been achieved already. If renewal of the assault weapons ban were easily accomplished, it would not need renewing because it would have happened already. The fact of the matter is the president is committed to pushing these proposals. He is not naive about the challenges that exist, but he believes that, as he said yesterday, if even one child’s life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions.”
What an unbelievably vicious, blood thirsty thing to say.
“…if even one child’s life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions…”
Really. Why? Because one child’s life is saved? THAT calculus is what you propose to drive the laws that will govern your lives, America?
So you’re going to get into a pissing match of tallying children’s corpses? U.S. Grant’s “terrible arithmetic” as the basis of law?!
What do I mean?
What if someone proposes a law that promises to save two children’s lives? Must you take those actions as well? What if it conflicts with the plan you proposed? What if they can show more dead bodies would result from your plan than theirs? Do you then get into a counting match, counting children’s bodies… what then, the one that produces fewer corpses, wins?
What if I propose the immediate slaughter of everyone who has ever shown a tendency towards improper behavior towards children… anyone who has ever spanked, beaten or leered at a child… that would undoubtedly save more than one child’s life… must we put that action into law as well?
Is that the sort of life you want for your child?
You cannot make decisions regarding people’s right to live their own lives, based upon some utilitarian calculus – such a life would not be worthy even of rising to the level of being nasty, brutish and short.
To be civilized, to live a life worth living, requires that you live your life under the rule of law, but not just any set of laws will do. The Rule of Law must be comprised of laws whose foundations and purposes are derived from the need to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of its citizens, and among those rights they must uphold and defend, are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and the Right to defend that life, from all threats, foreign and domestic, is a requirement of all the rest, or they must become meaningless whims and nothing more.
Anything less than that will soon be reduced to one of counting corpses to justify any evil imaginable… though for the greater good, of course.
