Prisoner's Rights

Greetings again loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader mentioned yesterday that he had a discourse on some prisoner's rights lawsuits scheduled for today. And far be it for me to keep my opinions from you all... You might remember that I was driving home last week from a hard day of plotting when I chanced to listen to an NPR story about prisoner's rights lawsuits in many states. Normally when such a story comes on a program like "All Things Distorted" (known to millions of unsuspecting listeners as "All Things Considered) your Maximum Leader refocuses himself and concentrates upon not driving over squirrels or rabbits.

Well, this story got my philosophical juices flowing. (So to speak.) For those of you who are newly minted minions or henchmen, you might not be aware of your Maximum Leader's fondness for the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. (See link at left for brief bio, or click here to read his best known work Leviathan.) Many of you may have heard, read, or be otherwise acquainted with the most famous line in this text. (And a line which your Maximum Leader is willing to put forth as the first political sound bite in history.) I know you know it. The one where he says that the natural condition of man is one of a "war of all against all" and that the life of man in this condition is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

At any rate, your Maximum Leader is a big believer in much of what Hobbes has to say about the nature of rights and government. Although it pains me to admit (as until the MWO comes your Maximum Leader is a loyal patriotic American), he has never really fully agreed with the famous words of Thomas Jefferson that men are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." This is to say that your Maximum Leader has not agreed with the premise of God himself giving to all humanity the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I know this might come as a shock to you, but it is true. I believe that we were all created with free will, and self-determination. But, I don't believe God went a step further and started to enumerate political rights for us all. The rights that we enjoy are not God-given. They are, in fact, Man-given. They are the product of our civilization and traditions. They are our customs. As such they can change. The prospect of our rights changing gets most people's knickers in a knot. Liberals want to create a whole bunch of new rights (at the expense of old ones) and Conservatives want to keep the ones we have (at the expense of changing times). We all have to admit that rights evolve as our civilization evolves.

Let your Maximum Leader go on the record now as saying HE and HE ALONE will be the font from which all rights flow down to you, my minions, in the MWO. But, I digress...

Let me move on to my point... Here is my arguement, one in the Hobbesian tradition:

Point one: In the state of nature, we are free to do whatever we want to ourselves or others.

Point two: We don't really like the implications of Point one. Why? 'Cause it means that other people can do to us as we can do unto them.

Point three: As we don't want others doing unto us willy nilly, we get together and form governments. We sacrifice our freedom (to do whatever, whenever, to whomever) to gain the protection of the government from our fellow man.

Point four: As long as we are good, obiedient members of our society and government, we are protected by laws. And laws are good.

Point five: Because laws are good and we all agree to live by them, we have rights. We have rights in society because we have agreed to give up the only true freedom we have.

Point six: What then happens to us if we don't follow the laws? If we are not good boys and girls? We are segregated from society because we can't play by the rules. And not playing by the rules is bad. It means that we have decided to regain our freedom, and sacrifice our rights and the protection of the state.

So, you may be asking yourself, "Self? What does this have to do with prisoners, religious freedom, lawsuits, and NPR?" Allow your Maximum Leader to illuminate you. While he listened, your Maximum Leader started to lose his famously even temper. Prisoners, suing states to grow their hair long? To smoke some gange? To freely and openly practice religion however they want in what should be a controlled environment suitable only for people who can't play by the rules? How can your Maximum Leader put a fine point on this? Some of you may be familiar with the late (and not much mourned) Jeffery Dahmer. Let us just say that in the MWO, after Dahmer had been tried in a court of law, found guilty, and allowed an appeal, he would have been set free from prison. But before he was set free; he would have the word "Murderer" branded onto his forehead. This brand would be the signal to good citizens of the MWO that Dahmer had put himself outside the protection of the state. He had chosen true freedom over protection. So, when Dahmer set foot outside of the prison, anyone could do anything to him they wanted. Believe in capital punishment? Go ahead and shoot, stab, or maim... Think he deserves a second chance, give him one. You offer to protect him personally. In essence, anyone would be free to do anything to him at any time. His conviction and failure to win appeal for a heinous crime meant that the state revoked its protection. Your Maximum Leader knows this sounds a little harsh, but he really thinks it is a better way.

So what about these prisoners? Frankly, they have, in the view of your Maximum Leader, they have chosen their path. Let them walk it.