Is there a single government – or a single federal elected official – who does not have blood on their hands? Male or female? Now in 2024 or in 1924 or in 1824?

We think the answer is no: they all have blood on their hands: they all have “blood guilt.” For various reasons, admittedly.

First, they have ordered and authorized the use of force against people. Both individually and in groups. And specifically against people who were not aggressive against others. People who were not committing acts that were wrong or evil – malum in se. But malum prohibitum – things that are wrong only because they are prohibited by law. Or custom, or decree, or interpretation. Often by those elected officials.

This includes many acts of war – whether declared or not. Even when going to war in defense of the union or the States or groups or individuals. Sometimes it has been coming to the defense of someone who has done something wrong. Other times there was a need for defending against aggression but the measures directed by Congress (and obviously the President) were far beyond a level of appropriate defensive action. An example of that is the invasion of Ontario in the War of 1812. Another was the invasion and conquest of Ciudad Mexico in 1848. Both were acts of aggression and both were authorized by Congress. And very few if any appointed federal officials refused to obey them.

Second, their hands are bloody because they refused (or were incompetent) in taking actions to prevent or deal with malum in se. This usually happened because these officials were not obeying or enforcing laws that did uphold morality: plea bargains, refusal to prosecute for clearly criminal and evil actions, and more. The invasion of tribal lands by law-breaking citizens and immigrants is one such early example. Today (and for much of the last two centuries) it includes not taking action to prevent or to punish those who have killed and injured others by their voluntary actions. This is despite the claim by this (and all human) government to have that power to protect their citizens: including the innocent and helpless. This includes much of fedgov foreign policy.

Related to that is the active approval and legalization of immoral actions. Not just abortion (though that is certainly a lot of blood – perhaps as great as the blood on the hands of Chinese or Russian or Mongolian rulers and a lot more than the Assyrians and Chaldeans have). Many libertarians have pointed out that the environmental regulatory system of the last fifty years (since the establishment of the EPA) is of this nature: polluters are given a license to pollute and thus trespass and aggress against other people and their land, air, and water. Included in this is the refusal to try, convict, and punish those of their own number who are immoral and approve and encourage acts of evil. This too includes much of government foreign policy.

Third, their hands are dripping with the blood of those who died because the government officials denied them fundamental God-given rights. Especially the right to defend themselves by taking away their arms. But again, this applies across the board: the prohibitions instituted and enforced by government on such things as foods and medications, and the licensing and other laws that prevent people from freely choosing their own service providers: plumbers, hairdressers and barbers, medical providers, and funeral services. To name just a few. Not all these things, of course, result immediately in bloodshed. But the enforcement of such prohibitions can and does lead to blood.

It is not just American federal officials who have shed innocent blood for the wrong reasons. Other nations share this guilt. And American States and their officials are also guilty.

Yet another reason that mandatory human government is a little-mitigated evil. And growing more evil constantly.