Journal of the Association of Future Philosophers

This is the Weed Talking

Justice vs. Government's Wall of Racism
by Weed Boctor, 8-23-1998

     Of the arguments of the partisans of government, one of the most remarkable is that it protects the weak. Government's Wall of Racism along the Mexico-U.S. border has recently claimed seven more lives. The Washington Post reported on August 13, “More than 100 illegal immigrants have died this year crossing the rugged terrain of the Southwest border.”
     Some partisans might attempt to justify government, arguing the seven Mexicans were abandoned by a smuggler, and left to die in the heat, and therefore, the smuggler is guilty of murder. However, this does not deny that government, by creating its Wall of Racism, is guilty of murder. Most people aren’t part of government and are, of course, innocent of this crime.
     In "Thousands die while trying to illegally cross the border," the August 24, 1997 Seattle Times reports that 1185 died over four years, citing a University of Houston study. Nestor Rodriguez, a co-author of the study, is quoted as saying, "It's the equivalent of a large plane load of people crashing every year."
     In their heroic efforts to get around government’s Wall of Racism to improve their socio-economic status and the well-being of their families, many drowned, were run over, or died from heat exhaustion. Bluntly put, with government, the powerful eat the weak.
     Some might argue that government is innocent since it was acting legally, while the Mexican immigrants were illegally crossing the border. This commits what we can call the “Socratic Fallacy.”
     This argument confuses law with justice, a distinction that philosophers have known for centuries. In the case of Socrates, government, that criminal institution, deploying its legal system, murdered Socrates, committing an obvious injustice.
     Government’s legal system is a tool by which the rulers effect their rule, by which the wolves rule the sheep. We have abundant empirical evidence which indicates it cannot be reconciled with justice -- under cover of law, it murdered men, women and babies on a scale otherwise unimaginable.
     Using its legal system, government has created a caste system, putting illegal aliens in one of its lowest castes, to be blocked, oppressed, hunted or murdered. This illuminates the criminal nature of government.
     The partisan of government might claim that government is ethically legitimate, and therefore, these Mexicans had an ethical duty to obey its laws. However, I am not wholly convinced that an institution that has murdered over 200,000,000 persons this century is ethically legitimate.
     Of course, government is not a person, and ethical concepts apply to persons. To say that government has committed murder says indirectly that government officials have committed murder.
The just government policy is ________ (fill in the blank).
     Some reformers might argue that the just government policy is to tear down its Wall of Racism. I reject this view since it is incompatible with justice. These reformers are looking at the predicate of the above sentence, ignoring the fact that government cannot be reconciled with justice. Therefore, any attempt to fill in the blank cannot be a correct view of justice.
     In “Open Borders are Better than Racism,” (U.T. 1995, and currently on the Association of Future Philosophers’ website (www.calstatela.edu/orgs/afp/obabtr.htm), I addressed some of the racists’ arguments for the Wall of Racism. I concluded by asking a question which is relevant today -- Is it about time to drop the hammer on the closet racists who practice this racist injustice?

Copyright © 1998, The Association of Future Philosophers. All rights reserved.
Back to Main Page

This page was created with Netscape Navigator Gold.