You're viewing a single thread.
Not saying it's ever good to assassinate anyone, buuut, considering what it takes to aquire large sums of bloody money like that, maybe with some of them a little oopsie can be overlooked . . .
Most people agree Hitler should have been assassinated. If you do you are already onboard with assassinations, we are just arguing where you draw the line.
If you are okay with killing a soldier fighting for a leader due to the leader's actions or morals but not the leader because that would be an "assassination" you have essentially fallen for ruling class propaganda anyway.
What if I'm not okay with either?
I completely disagree with the death penalty and instead want to put these losers in jail. If that's not an option, sure, use the least amount of force possible to solve the problem and prevent further violence, but extrajudicial killings should never be your first option.
It’s fine to not support any death - ever. Don’t sweat that.
There’s a skit on a Fugees album where it essentially says: “Let a MF kick you one time then he’ll kick you one time. Let a MF kick you two times then he gonna kick you two times… but if you rip off his MFing legs then there ain’t gonna be no more kicking.”
I think some very tired people have got to the leg removing stage.
It's one thing to say it casually from your chair, it's another entirely to actually see it through. Add to that the statistics for innocent people who were executed and I just cannot understand how anyone could actually be in favor of capital punishment.
If you want to punish someone, death is often a kindness to someone facing the consequences of their actions. If you want justice, killing someone isn't going to undo any of the harm that person did, so it's better to give them the chance to make some form of restitution.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
When you say "least amount of force", what do you mean?
Intimidation? Lobotomies? Brainwashing?
At what point does keeping someone alive but "neutralized" become inhumane?
Least amount of force is ideally jail. No funky science experiments, just keep them in a secure facility.
inhumane
It's only inhumane if they're no longer a danger to society.
Justice should never be about punishment, but preventing further harm and making as much restitution as possible.
I skipped incarceration because you'd already expressed it as preferable to capital punishment.
It's only inhumane if they're no longer a danger to society.
I cannot agree there. Unless you're arguing that "everything is legitimate" in the case of dangerous individuals, I imagine you don't really believe that either.
Rehabilitation is always the goal, but in instances where it is unachievable and the perpetrator is reasonably expected to remain unrepentant, is keeping them alive and imprisoned for life at the expense of law-abiding citizens the way forward? Would they not grow resentful of having to support those who do not follow the social contract?
is keeping them alive and imprisoned for life at the expense of law-abiding citizens the way forward?
Yes, for two reasons:
- it's immoral to kill people, because there's always a chance at rehabilitation; IMO, if we give up on that, we give up on humanity
- it's generally more expensive to execute someone than keep them locked up indefinitely, so it's not even a pragmatic option
Even if the second were not the case, I would still say yes due to the first.
I think the goals should be essentially this:
- complete rehabilitation - not always possible, but it should always be assumed to be
- return to society with the harm being neutralized - any alterations must 100% be the choice of the individual (e.g. a serial rapist could elect to be castrated, a kleptomaniac or stalker could elect for permanent tracking via microchip, etc)
- return to productive interaction with society, while still physically restrained - e.g. they can work within prison
- voluntary doctor-assisted suicide - an individual should always have the option of ending their life, provided they're of sound-enough mind
I'm against 2 & 4 until we have certain checks in place to prevent abuse, and 3 would absolutely need to be opt-in by the prisoner.
Would they not grow resentful of having to support those who do not follow the social contract?
As long as murder is unacceptable in society, it's the price you pay for the privilege of stripping someone else's rights from them.
IMO, the only valid use of lethal force is if there's no valid alternative option to protect innocent lives. I would kill if it directly spared innocent lives, but not if there's any possibility of protecting innocent lives another way.
- return to society with the harm being neutralized - any alterations must 100% be the choice of the individual (e.g. a serial rapist could elect to be castrated, a kleptomaniac or stalker could elect for permanent tracking via microchip, etc)
We kinda do this already with ankle monitors, not that I think subdermal tracking would be any less fallible.
As long as murder is unacceptable in society, it's the price you pay for the privilege of stripping someone else's rights from them.
Therein's the rub, see. That's the price to be paid for one person. If the murder of one enriches the many, maybe it was worth it. And since not everyone values lives equally, not everyone can have a unanimous take.
IMO, the only valid use of lethal force is if there's no valid alternative option to protect innocent lives. I would kill if it directly spared innocent lives, but not if there's any possibility of protecting innocent lives another way.
I laud you for having and knowing your heirarchy of values, I am still (and quite possibly forever will be) determining my own red lines.
Yeah, it's an interesting thought process to go through.
I really like how Penn Jillette puts it:
Penn: Absolutely. I believe there are legitimate purposes of the government like defense, courts and police. I don’t think you can privatize police, jails or courts. That’s where legitimate force comes in. My question is: What would I personally use a gun to accomplish? I would use a gun to stop a rape. I would use a gun to stop a terrorist attack. I would not use a gun to build a library. My morality is such that if I’m not willing to use violence myself, I’d never use violence because I’m a coward, but theoretically if I’m not willing to use violence myself then I can’t condone the government using violence.
What are you willing to use a gun for? And I don't mean theoretically, I mean if the gun was literally in your hand and pulling the trigger would have the desired effect, what would you actually be willing to use a gun for? And what if the desired effect isn't guaranteed, how much assurance would you need, or how much collateral damage is acceptable?
Everyone has their own threshold, and this threshold surely changes as we have our own experiences in life. My threshold is really high, and I would probably only use violence to protect my family and close friends.
What if I’m not okay with either?
Then my statement starting with "If you are okay with killing ..." obviously doesn't apply to you.
Not really arguing anything, just hinting that we have a bunch of problematic rich people and maybe we need to start 'accidentally' having a few less of them
Classic trolley problem.
I have no issue with asmashasinations. If it's us or them, I choose us.
Yeah but those people also wanted capitalism so.... yeah If they're unwilling to address the root cause then at this point, you are the architect of your own misery