Communist or Trump? The Game Show.

 

Top Stories

Where does the Government Obtain the Authority to Kill a Person Who is no Longer Poses an Immediate Threat

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi, Facebook, Oct. 1, 2026 - I oppose it on the Lockean delegation principle.

John Locke grounds legitimate government in the collective delegation of our natural right of self-defense. But that right permits the use of force to stop an unjust threat. It does not give an individual the authority to kill someone who has already been restrained and no longer poses an immediate threat. If government possesses only those coercive powers that individuals may legitimately delegate to it, then the death penalty appears to exceed that delegated authority.

Frédéric Bastiat reinforces this principle by describing government as the collective exercise of the individual right of lawful defense. Its legitimate function is therefore to protect each person’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property, rather than to exercise an independent power to initiate force against people who no longer pose a threat.

That is why I am less interested in opposing the death penalty on consequentialist grounds. My objection is more fundamental: I do not think the authority to execute can be derived from the limited authority individuals possess over one another in a free society.

The problem for those who want to apply this principle selectively is that it does not stop with the death penalty. Once you take seriously the proposition that government authority is limited to powers individuals can legitimately delegate, much of the interventionist state becomes difficult to justify. You cannot invoke the delegation principle when it produces a preferred conclusion and then set it aside when applying it would constrain taxation, regulation, redistribution, licensing, or other exercises of coercive government power.

That leaves you with a scattered collection of arguments about the death penalty, each attacking a different question: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, proportionality, morality, and so forth. Those arguments may be worth debating individually, but they largely avoid the more fundamental question of where the government obtains the authority to kill a person who is no longer an immediate threat.

Michael Dioguardi is a residential property manager and independent blogger writing under the title Seeker of Liberty. Drawing on years of dedicated study of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, landmark court decisions, and Austrian School economics, he analyzes contemporary challenges to individual liberty, institutional accountability, and economic stability. Michael resides in Nashville. 

#

The above essay is in response to an essay opposing the death penalty written by Mark Rogers. To see Mark Rogers essay and my comments on the death penalty, follow this link.

Top Stories

It is Time to End the Death Penalty

Mark Rogers

by Mark Rogers, Facebook, Oct. 1, 2026 -  How many more examples of unnecessary cruelty will Tennessee provide before the People demand an end to the stupid and wasteful use of the death penalty? Not only is the death penalty lousy public policy, but apparently, the Volunteer state can't even do it properly. 

It shouldn't be necessary to reiterate all the reasons the death penalty should be consigned to the ash heap of History but... as a public service...

1) The death penalty cannot be undone. The discovery of new evidence or the exposition of false evidence or the realization that police or prosecutors played fast and loose with the facts can't be redressed with an official "Ooopsie" and a large check. Mistakes are final. 

2) The death penalty prevents criminals from changing their lives and improving their worlds even from prison. I would think people who want law to reflect Christian Values would prefer a system that allows for criminals to come to Christ rather than die unchanged. 

3) The death penalty is applied unfairly. Poor and minority killers are far more likely to be sentenced to death than well-off white killers. The idea that the death penalty is Justice is a myth. 

4) The death penalty is not a measurable deterrent to future criminals. 

5) The ultimate argument for the death penalty is revenge. Revenge isn't Justice. Revenge isn't good public policy. Revenge at the price of an innocent life isn't the behavior of a Just or Good society. 

How many more innocent people need to die to satiate the lust of some people for 'revenge,' especially when they weren't harmed? How many more people who never had a chance in life must die for the same reason?

Mark Rogers has long been active in Republican Party politics and is an astute observer of political trends and events and Republican politics.  He is well known as a successful Republican campaign manager and political consultant. He has also served in government and the non-profit sector. He is currently exiled from the Republican Party. He lives in Nashville.

#

Comments by Rod Williams -I have changed my mind about the death penalty. I have been of the view that some crimes or so horrendous that the death penalty was justified, but I now think the death penalty should be abolished.  I find Mark Rogers's arguments above persuasive. 

In addition to the above arguments, I have changed my mind because it can take 30 years to carry out the sentence. Some people die on death row of natural causes, never executed. Sometimes the family of the victim dies before the sentence is carried out. If justice were swift, I would be less opposed. Rather than the family of the victim waiting thirty years for justice, and experiencing delay after delay, and the State and those opposing the carrying out of the sentence spending thirty years in court fighting over the carrying out of the sentence, would it not be better to just sentence the person to life in prison without the possibility of parole? I think it would.

Another reason I have become an opponent of the death penalty is because of the failure to successfully carry it out.  The State attempted to carry out the execution of Christa Pike on Wednesday night. She was given two doses of pentobarbital by injection, but her heart did not stop. The Knoxville Federal Public Defender’s Office immediately filed for a stay of execution; it was granted, and life-saving measures were administered to Pike.

This is the second botched execution in Tennessee this year. I cannot understand why it is so hard to kill someone. People die of accidental overdoses all the time. Since apparently there is a reason the process of ending a person's life is so difficult, I think it is cruel and inhuman to attempt the execution, fail, administer lifesaving treatments to save the life of the criminal, and then try again later. 

The Christa Pike story is horrendous. It was senseless murder carried out by young people ages 17 and 18. Pike killed another girl for trying to steal her boyfriend and then bragged about the killing and carried a piece of the girl's skull in her pocket as a souvenir. There is no excusing or justifying the murder or minimizing the evil that occurred. To read more about the case, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Charlie Hatcher Distances Himself from Trump, Scrubs Trump from His Campaign Materials

by Rod Williams, Sept. 29, 2026 - Across the nation, Republican candidates running for office in the midterm elections are trying to distance themselves from President Donald Trump. They are scrubbing references and images of Donald Trump from their websites, campaign materials, fundraising letters, and emails. Many are hoping Donald Trump does not come to their district to campaign for them.

Former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who is running for Congress in Tennessee's fifth Congressional district, has changed his campaign slogan to remove a reference to President Donald Trump.

His former campaign slogan read “Pro-Gun. Pro-Life. Pro-Trump,” and appeared at the bottom of his campaign website. But the logo featuring the slogan has been removed from the website and fundraising emails. The slogan has been changed to read, "Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, Pro-Tennessee." 

It appears his campaign is panicking as he faces an incredibly strong challenge from Columbia Mayor Chaz Molder. Hatcher is running in a district Trump would have won by 20+ points, and yet polling shows Molder is within striking distance. 

The shift in Hatcher’s campaign slogan comes as Republicans nationwide grapple with backlash over the increase in gas and diesel prices, higher grocery prices, and inflation. Also, it seems that Trump's outrageous, erratic, and silly behavior and focus on things like the fight over the Kennedy Center and renaming bodies of water are turning people off, when what they think he should be focusing on is the economy. 

 I suspect that five weeks before the election is a little late to pretend you are not a Trumpinista.

Top Stories

The Coming Republican Revolt Against Tariffs

by Rod Williams, Sept. 27, 2026 - For decades, Republican Party politics has held that America and the world are better off with a free-trade policy. While many Democrats pandered to their union base and ran on a protectionist platform, when in office, most Democrats, like Republicans, advanced free trade.

If one looks back at NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), it was proposed by Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. President George H.W. Bush negotiated it, and President Bill Clinton later slightly modified and amended it before signing it into law. It passed Congress with bipartisan support. 

Free trade has been the trajectory of the world since the days of Adam Smith, and it advanced until the Great Depression. Some would argue that the abandonment of free trade and the Smoot-Hawley tariffs was a major contributing cause of the Great Depression. 

After World War II, the liberalization of trade again advanced starting in 1947 when nations created the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to reduce tariffs and provide a legal framework for trade. Other agreements followed. Liberalizing trade was the bipartisan policy of the United States up until the time of President Trump and the start of the current trade wars.

All of this time, while trade liberalization policies advanced under both Democrats and Republicans, Republicans were stronger advocates for free trade than were Democrats. I have been dismayed by Republicans' abandonment of free trade. Along with support for tariff reductions and free trade, Republicans have abandoned many of the beliefs they once held dear. 

With the consequences of Trump's trade wars becoming more and more clear and Trump's popularity waning, will Republicans return to their decades-long support for free trade? Below are excerpts from an article recently appearing in The Wall Street Journal. It is by Phil Gramm and Donald Boudreaux. Phil Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University and the Mercatus Center. They argue that Republicans will come to their senses and return to advocating for free trade. While I am pessimistic about the future of our nation and the world, and wonder if the old order can be restored, this article provides reason for optimism. Below are excerpts:

... When Mr. Trump asserted executive authority to impose the highest tariffs in 90 years, Republican congressmen, though skeptical, remained silent. If tariffs hurt Republicans in the November elections as much as they have hurt the economy, the midterms could end up igniting a Reagan revival on trade, shifting the trajectory of the party and the country. Donald Trump’s tariffs are hurting Americans. Real economic growth is slowing, consumer prices rising, and real wages stagnating. Now the Republican Party is set to pay for it.

No American president was more passionate about trade liberalization than Ronald Reagan. He understood that free and open markets allow “more productive use of our nation’s resources, more rapid innovation, and a higher standard of living,” as he said in 1985. “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations.”

Most Republicans in Congress favor free trade. ... The production disruptions and economic uncertainty that have come with Mr. Trump’s tariffs aren’t winning Americans over. ...  congressional Republicans, because of intimidation or party loyalty, failed to oppose Mr. Trump’s tariffs ... Americans have reaped enormous gains from the fall of protectionist barriers. Per capita gross domestic product has risen 367% in real purchasing power since 1947. 

.... The 2028 Republican primaries could be an opportunity for this Reagan trade revival to reassert control of the GOP. The right candidate could run on “affordability,” committing to overturn the Trump tariffs and differentiating himself from Trump protectionism and industrial policy. 

To read the full article, follow this link. 

Top Stories