What We Need are More Daniel Pennys
A homeless man runs around New York, violently stabbing peaceful citizens out for the day or at work; no one stops him or reports his crime spree. Thousands of illegal immigrants are flown into the United States by the U.S. Government and are dumped into small, peaceful rural American communities whose way of life is utterly uprooted and threatened by the newcomers. A young college girl, full of life and hope for the future, is suddenly kidnapped, raped, and murdered by an illegal migrant who has been arrested numerous times by the authorities but later released.
What do all of these (real) incidents have in common? In each case, civil law has broken down and citizens and their communities are left helpless and vulnerable. In each case, the political authorities who should have been wielding the power of the sword to protect Americans have gone slack—or worse, are deliberately targeting Americans who oppose the colonization and ruin of their own country.
American Injustice
It has become common to speak of the current American justice system as having “two tiers”: a privileged tier for the political ruling class along with their “disadvantaged” and “minority” dependency voting bloc (women, blacks, gays, immigrants), and a second tier targeting poor whites, scrappy working-and middle-class families, and heartland Americans loyal to an older vision of the country. Egregious examples of this arbitrary and unjust system have been pointed out by libertarians and conservatives alike. It is a fruitful heuristic for understanding why Hunter Biden’s laptop contents were originally suppressed and the story covered over, and why the son of President Biden could money launder millions to his father and snort cocaine in the White House without a shred of criminal repercussions; or, for explaining the intense judicial and social scrutiny of Kyle Rittenhouse after he deftly defended himself against the BLM mob, or the show trial and fake murder conviction of Derek Chauvin for the death of the Patron Saint of American Racial Injustice, George Floyd, in May 2020.
A two-tiered justice system goes hand-in-hand with anarcho-tyrannical regimes—a predatory political system first described by Sam Francis in the early 1990s, but ever-increasingly used to explain America’s current regime, England’s draconian “hate speech” laws, and now the Daniel Penny case. The irony of a two-tiered justice system is that there is not a bit of justice to be found in either tier. The privileged classes are not held to account for their crimes and misdeeds, thus becoming the source of social anarchy and a terror to themselves and others; the targeted classes are vigorously and meticulously pursued for crimes they did not commit and so wither and withdraw under the tyrant’s gaze. Those who are lucky to avoid arrest or public censur must still grapple with the public chaos purposely created by anarcho-tyrannies.
Any individual or community who seeks to intervene to arrest the disorder, to protect the vulnerable, or to hold criminals or vigilantes to account is immediately identified by the authorities and made to pay the price. Stephen Wolfe describes the dynamic in the following manner:
A man, acting independent of official authority—an authority either unable or unwilling to deal with disorder—confronts an individual in his neighborhood displaying potentially dangerous behavior and he attempts to pressure the unruly man out of the community. But instead of dealing with the man terrorizing the community, the authorities target the protector. By nationalizing the news, the Regime has effectively sent a message to all white men: you cannot confront disorder in your neighborhood; you must trust the authorities, even when the authorities do nothing.
This is what happened to Daniel Penny, who, when faced with Jordan Neely’s lawlessness and public threat on May 1, 2023, took it upon himself to intervene and neutralize the danger Neely posed to the small subway-riding community. In a healthy political regime, this act would have been celebrated as heroic. Instead, Penny was demonized as a racist outlaw, and was promptly charged with second-degree manslaughter by the notoriously corrupt and politicized Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg. Within six weeks Penny was indicted by a grand jury and was released on a $100,000 cash bail.
Last week, the year and half-long trial finally came to an end. Despite irregularities by the prosecution and the blatant attempt to convict Penny at all costs, the jury returned a ‘not-guilty’ verdict. As others have pointed out, Donald Trump’s recent victory in the Presidential election probably had much to do with the outcome, creating a momentum shift and signaling that the current anarcho-tyrannical regime—which has made Trump and his supporters its main targets the past eight years—is on the way out. Americans can hope that Trump’s second administration is able to restore order and do what every government is primarily tasked with doing: protecting the life and liberties of its citizens and providing a secure and stable community where they might live.
In the absence of such order, however, when the chaos of deliberate government-sponsored anarchy descends upon our lives and communities, one is immediately confronted with a stark question that tests one’s character: what will you do? Will you act to defend yourself and the lives of others, not only putting your life in immediate danger, but knowing that you will inevitably face an unjust criminal prosecution afterward? Or will you stay seated and quiet, stare at your phone, and just hope that the problem goes away? Few citizens possess the courage or thymos to choose the first option; many others believe that it would be wrong to do so, for who has the right to take the law into his own hands? The case of Daniel Penny confronts us with one of the most important issues in political philosophy—the executive power of the law of nature.
The Executive Power of the Law of Nature
Where does the power to confront and restrain social evil come from? We all know that God has this power and prerogative. But do men? If so, do all men equally possess this right and power, or only some? Americans are so used to their government fulfilling this role, and (historically speaking) doing it rather well, that they rarely stop to ponder where this power comes from or what should happen if civil government fails. Many conceive of civil government itself as being coterminous with legitimate violence: only the civil magistrate, we are told, has a rightful monopoly on violence.
This perspective, however, is a modern one. The idea of the ‘state’ as a mechanism of supreme sovereignty able to command men and punish them when they break the law originated with Niccolò Machiavelli. For Machiavelli, lo stato was primarily defined by its power to command and exploit the weakness of others, and while there remained a personal element in the state for Machiavelli, the impersonal, abstract, and bureaucratic nature of the modern state was developed more fully by Thomas Hobbes. In this view, ‘the state’ is indistinguishable from its arms—from its power to defeat a foreign foe and execute or incarcerate domestic troublemakers. Today’s libertarians are most closely associated with this understanding, as they reduce the legitimacy of the state exclusively to defending life and property. Any personal or partisan element in what should be the automatic, impersonal, and procedural machinery of civil government is decried as “politicization” and repudiated as un-American.
Americans are also familiar with John Locke’s account of the executive power of self-defense and the punishment of evil. Locke locates this power in the individual, who, in the state of nature before civil government exists, “has a Right to punish the Offender, and be Executioner of the Law of Nature” (Second Treatise, §8). In Locke’s account, this power originates with man even though the Law of Nature is divine—the voice of God (reason) within each man, instructing him on what is good and evil and what actions are right or wrong. When confronted with the anarchy of social chaos or deliberately manufactured violence, this executive power allows an individual to punish crime for the purpose of restraint and reparation (to restore the damages to the injured party).
Locke admitted that the executive power of the law of nature was a “strange doctrine.” While perhaps perfectly clear in theory, Locke admitted it would not work in practice: “it is unreasonable for Men to be Judges in their own Cases, [and] Self-love will make Men partial to themselves and their friends” (§13). This is why, for Locke, this power must be delegated to a common arbiter who will judge impartially and correctly for the whole community. This power of civil government can only be assured just and true if it is regulated by law—its metes and bounds declared ahead of time, its standards of justice, guilt and innocence, and criminal evidence carefully prescribed, and its inequalities only permitted according to natural differences (such as trying juveniles and adults differently). This is why, for moderns, the best government is limited and impersonal, its goodness defined primarily by its procedural regularity and clock-like machinery.
The Prerogative of Great Men
There is another way to approach this matter, even using Locke. Locke’s assessment of a common arbiter as necessary for the survival and justness of a political community was predicated upon his assessment of the rational capacities of most men. Most men are weak and stupid. They do not think clearly, their education is mediocre, they care more about following fashionable public opinion, and they will not blink to violate the moral law if it is to their advantage. They certainly won’t risk life and limb, or the wrath of a degenerate magistrate, to courageously save others. Mechanical government is introduced to save men from themselves.
The actions of a Daniel Penny are rare. They are noble and beautiful. If every man were Penny, then the executive power of the law of nature could properly be exercised by every man, and the political community would be at peace. In a sense, therefore, Penny is a representative of perfect justice and good government. Daniel Penny is what the civil magistrate ought to be. Through him, all the people on the subway were made safe and secure. Through him, the citizens of New York City see what their City could be, and they long for more Daniel Pennys to arise among them.
From this perspective, Penny is the perfect Lockean executive wielding prerogative power independent of law or even against the law: “the Executor of the Laws, having the power in his hands, has by the common Law of Nature, a right to make use of it, for the good of the Society, in many Cases, where the municipal Law has given no direction … this Power to act according to discretion, for the publick good, without the prescription of the Law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is called Prerogative” (Second Treatise, §159-160). This “wise and godlike Prince” (§42) is the antithesis of an impersonal and violent lo stato; he embodies political magistracy in his unique character, his striking handsomeness, his virtues and foresight, and his unflinching resolve to do what is right for the sake of his fellow citizens.
In many ways, Daniel Penny is the consummate American. From her beginning, America has faced both anarchy and tyranny—the anarchy of an untamed wilderness that killed many of those who first arrived, and the tyranny of merciless Indian savages and then a despotic British Empire determined to subjugate and squash the independent colonies. America has known anarcho-tyranny before, and yet her spirit and men have never been cowed by either. Nor will they be now. Miraculously, Penny won his case despite a corrupt and reprobate court. His spirit and victory will inspire more individuals and communities to be like him, to challenge and eventually defeat the anarcho-tyrannical regime that has almost destroyed this country. Almost, except for men like Daniel Penny.
Image Credit: Unsplash
The above article shows the appeal which Trump used to help win an election. Being privileged by the two-tier system, he portrays himself, and his followers as the victims, which can be quite flattering, rather than the beneficiaries of a two tier system. Daniel Penny used a potentially deadly hold to subdue a man with mental illness–we should note that the above article doesn’t mention the man’s mental state. The latter, in a more just society, wouldn’t be left to his own resources but would receive significant help and perhaps residency. The former used a technique that police are barred from using. Who is the victim between the two?
I have found that many of the accusations that Trump and his followers make are really confessions of sins. Who tried to steal the election in 2020? Was it dems whom Trump’s own DOJ found to be innocent or the man who had 60 frivolous lawsuits filed and inspired an insurrection who tried to steal the election? Even in 2016, he claimed that the only way he could lose the election was if it was rigged? Where is the evidence for that?
Or look at the possession of classified documents. Both Pence and Biden returned the documents upon the self-discovery by their respective teams. Trump refused requests from the National Archives to return the documents? And who, by election, is being protected from being tried on indictments?
When we look at immigrants, who are trying to escape poverty and violence caused, at least in part, by US foreign policies, who are the real victims? When we can selectively focus on the crimes of a few, and so why bother with comparing the percentages of American citizens with immigrants? And so who are the victims here? Fly-over and Southern Americans. Of course, which groups supported a man who demonstrates serious levels of narcissism and authoritarianism. What did George Carlin say? Didn’t he say something to the effect that selfish, ignorant people elect selfish ignorant leaders. And before the dems think that they are superior to the Trumpublicans, they should remember that their candidate’s campaign was based on John Malloy’s Dressed for Success principles.
Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, adequately demonstrates that Blacks are not the beneficiaries of a two tiered justice system. How is that possible in a nation in which significant vestiges of systemic racism still exist?
And how do Trumpublicans respond? They do so in the same way that their leader responds. They do so with claims that they are the real victims. Claiming to be the victims, or the those who suffered the most, when not supported by the facts can be quite flattering.
We aren’t going to let the mentally deranged homeless man kill us just because he’s black, Curt. It doesn’t matter how much you castigate us for it, we will fight back.
Dylan,
There is only one other option to choose?
First, why are we seeming to say to those who are so mentally ill that they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Second, why use a potentially dangerous hold when others could have been used instead?
While you are focusing on race, that man’s story is reminding us that we can’t afford to neglect those who are so mentally ill. To do otherwise is what puts us all at risk
You should be mocked for such self-imposed blindness and stupidity.
Trevor,
And you should be ignored until you address specific points made by others and use logic to show why their claims are as bad as you say they are.
You and others write as if we are on the playground at recess.