Assassination of politicians: Would it be moral?

[Neu California]

This is interesting.
4 opinions so far, all of which are different.

I don't think it is morally correct to kill anyone, ever. So the answer to all of your questions would be no. Including the one about punishing people for supporting such a person.

I agree with you on the 3rd point.
But would you still think it morally incorrect to kill someone even if you knew that such a person would kill others if you did not kill them, especially if they have already killed others?

Not unless all other methods of getting them out of office had been exhausted, and they were doing a lot of active damage to their country.

What would you consider "alot of active damage to their country"?
And if all other methods of getting them out of office have not been used, how does that justify letting them live.

NO! Murder is wrong. That person would rightfully rule that nation, killing him/her wouldnt solve anything.

Would you say murder is wrong if the person you would be killing was a murderer who was going to go out and kill even more people?
And how can you say that a person who tramples on individual rights (Life liberty property pursuit of happiness equality under the law) is a rightful ruler?
For an example, I would take an issue YOU are sensitive about.
Because he is democratically elected?
Because he declares himself to be?

One or (preferably) more of the following:
1. economic collapse
2. a lot of infrastructure in an unusable or nearunusable state.
3. active genocide.
4. armies beating at the door of the nation
5. Actively suppressing any dissident opinions
6. The vast majority living in squalor, while a select few get special treatment from the government.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Austrians and the French never supported Hitler, they opposed his takeover.
What makes you think the majority has more rights than the minority?
The minority was never given the option of refusing taxes, refusing to join the military, so why does democracy trump individual rights?

The Austrians were cheering in the streets waving Swastika's.
...Mob rule?
A leader can trump rights whether he is elected or not.

Does such a leader have the right to trump other rights whether he is elected or not?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

The Austrians were cheering in the streets waving Swastika's.
...Mob rule?
A leader can trump rights whether he is elected or not.

Does such a leader have the right to trump other rights whether he is elected or not?

It is his/her nation to rule so yes.

[Zonolia]

It would be unmoral for murder is wrong...also there is no such thing as "dictatorship" it's simply the majority ignoring a power hungry minority...all government types are inherently democratic for they cannot exist without the majority's consensus...i.e. a "President" is in power due to a majority of the voting people wanting them in power while a "Dictator" is in power due to the majority wanting them in power OR the majority allowing a minority to rule as they see fit...if the majority really wanted an "Oppressive Dictator" out of power they'd rise up and turn on him (i.e. Czarist Russia and how even the army turned)...

So yeah murder=bad and there is no such thing as a "...leader of a said nation trampled on individual rights, resulting in tyranny..."

Also, to answer the other questions, if the majority finds the leader to of been "bad" and they wish to punish them, well, as I stated above, in all instances...the majority's will is law...

[North California]

Well, if America was ruled by George III, Hitler, or Stalin, I'd be perfectly happy if they were removed from office through unconventional means.

[Virana]

Does such a leader have the right to trump other rights whether he is elected or not?

It is his/her nation to rule so yes.

So you're okay with a guy completely oppressing his people just because he can since it's his/her nation to rule?

Remind me to move if you decide to take over.

[Luziyca]

In my opinion, murder of politicians are not moral. The only time which it can be considered acceptable is if they meet the following criteria. Not some, but ALL of the criteria.

A) He or she is corrupt.
B) A significant majority oppose him/her.
C) S/he represses liberties, or gives permission to Group X to celebrate X's traditions, while denying Native Group Y to celebrate Y's traditions.
D) A stable replacement, ideally one of your own ideology, but anyone to replace them OUTSIDE their party.

If they meet all of these criteria, I will not give a damn if the politician get murdered, but if even ONE of these conditions is NOT true, they cannot eliminate him/her from the country.

[Wisconsin9]

Well, if America was ruled by George III, Hitler, or Stalin, I'd be perfectly happy if they were removed from office through unconventional means.

Unconventional as in against the norm or unconventional as in unconventional weapons?

[Moving Forward Inc]

Does such a leader have the right to trump other rights whether he is elected or not?

It is his/her nation to rule so yes.

So therefore a leader has a right to repress the rights of other leaders?

[Virana]

It would be unmoral for murder is wrong...also there is no such thing as "dictatorship" it's simply the majority ignoring a power hungry minority...all government types are inherently democratic for they cannot exist without the majority's consensus...i.e. a "President" is in power due to a majority of the voting people wanting them in power while a "Dictator" is in power due to the majority wanting them in power OR the majority allowing a minority to rule as they see fit...if the majority really wanted an "Oppressive Dictator" out of power they'd rise up and turn on him (i.e. Czarist Russia and how even the army turned)...

So yeah murder=bad and there is no such thing as a "...leader of a said nation trampled on individual rights, resulting in tyranny..."

Also, to answer the other questions, if the majority finds the leader to of been "bad" and they wish to punish them, well, as I stated above, in all instances...the majority's will is law...

People can't always rise up; it all depends on the circumstances present. Those people in Syria are trying pretty hard, but at this point it doesn't look like Al-Assad is going to lose his power.

It all depends on who has the power. If a leader has an entire military to back him, large enough to hold its own against all the desertions, then the people can't successfully or practically "rise up and turn on him". It takes time, effort, planning, and lots of luck. That's why there is a "such thing" as a "leader of a said nation trampled on individual rights, resulting in tyranny..."

Just because there's no revolution doesn't mean that there's no need for one.

[North California]

Well, if America was ruled by George III, Hitler, or Stalin, I'd be perfectly happy if they were removed from office through unconventional means.

Unconventional as in against the norm or unconventional as in unconventional weapons?

Unconventional as in against the norm. I'm against the use of most unconventional weapons (chemical and nuclear weapons)

I lol'ed at unconventional weapons. Sure, I dislike our government, but nuking DC seems a bit far fetched. But, since the Redskins are in DC, I guess it would be okay to nuke the place

[Moving Forward Inc]

BTW everyone the poll has been made.

Feel free to flick me a message if you feel there are any changes needing to be made to the poll or options added.

[North California]

"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

-Thomas Jefferson

[Zonolia]

It would be unmoral for murder is wrong...also there is no such thing as "dictatorship" it's simply the majority ignoring a power hungry minority...all government types are inherently democratic for they cannot exist without the majority's consensus...i.e. a "President" is in power due to a majority of the voting people wanting them in power while a "Dictator" is in power due to the majority wanting them in power OR the majority allowing a minority to rule as they see fit...if the majority really wanted an "Oppressive Dictator" out of power they'd rise up and turn on him (i.e. Czarist Russia and how even the army turned)...

So yeah murder=bad and there is no such thing as a "...leader of a said nation trampled on individual rights, resulting in tyranny..."

Also, to answer the other questions, if the majority finds the leader to of been "bad" and they wish to punish them, well, as I stated above, in all instances...the majority's will is law...

People can't always rise up; it all depends on the circumstances present. Those people in Syria are trying pretty hard, but at this point it doesn't look like Al-Assad is going to lose his power.

It all depends on who has the power. If a leader has an entire military to back him, large enough to hold its own against all the desertions, then the people can't successfully or practically "rise up and turn on him". It takes time, effort, planning, and lots of luck. That's why there is a "such thing" as a "leader of a said nation trampled on individual rights, resulting in tyranny..."

Just because there's no revolution doesn't mean that there's no need for one.

The people are allowing a military-based democracy to rule...you gotta look at it like this, the military are comprised of people too like you and me, obviously keeping that guy in power is beneficially to them so all-in-all he cannot be completely bad for he is catering to the wants and needs of his power base (military+their families+their friends+their friends families) when he hurts those people whom the soldier finds more dear than his benefits for keeping him in power, then he looses his power base...or which is probably moreso the case is the soldiers are being threatened into submission by another solider whom is too, until they realize that the threats only roll higher and higher up the hierarchical ladder and reach Al-Assad whom cannot kill his entire military on his own...meh my thoughts are complicated and this paragraph above probably makes no sense...

[Moving Forward Inc]

"The tree of liberty must be shed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

-Thomas Jefferson

Agreed.

[Confederated Veteran States]

And if they are considered corrupt because they outlaw drug use and ritual sacrifice, trampling on the rights of others? What if he has major opposition because he has a interracial marriage? Your standards seem a bit too subjective.

That being said, I don't agree with any political reasons why assassination of leaders should be tolerated in general. The only time I could see it is when there is, or is a imminent threat of, a major war or genocide and doing so would, or is highly predicted to, remove the threat.

[Wisconsin9]

"The tree of liberty must be shed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

-Thomas Jefferson

Hear hear!

[Blakk Metal]

Prove it.

If he is the leader, he rightfully rules it. Obama is the rightful leader of the USA as of now.

Circular logic is circular.

[Moving Forward Inc]

So would anyone here support the assassination of Mitt Romney or Barack Obama if they won the election?
Or to make the screams louder and the piles of puke larger, Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander, Rick Santorum, or Virgil Goode?

[North California]

"The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

-Thomas Jefferson

Hear hear!

What does "hear hear" mean? I see it all the time, but I don't actually know what it means.

[Moving Forward Inc]

If he is the leader, he rightfully rules it. Obama is the rightful leader of the USA as of now.

Circular logic is circular.

I was going to show him the contradiction in his logic but he doesn't seem to be replying to my posts.

[Blakk Metal]

So would anyone here support the assassination of Mitt Romney or Barack Obama if they won the election?
Or to make the screams louder and the piles of puke larger, Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander, Rick Santorum, or Virgil Goode?

Fuck yeah!

[Moving Forward Inc]

So would anyone here support the assassination of Mitt Romney or Barack Obama if they won the election?
Or to make the screams louder and the piles of puke larger, Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander, Rick Santorum, or Virgil Goode?

Fuck yeah!

Which ones?

[Neu California]

So would anyone here support the assassination of Mitt Romney or Barack Obama if they won the election?
Or to make the screams louder and the piles of puke larger, Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander, Rick Santorum, or Virgil Goode?

Not a chance. Impeachment if they went too far, but not assassination.

[North California]

So would anyone here support the assassination of Mitt Romney or Barack Obama if they won the election?
Or to make the screams louder and the piles of puke larger, Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander, Rick Santorum, or Virgil Goode?

Maybe:
Romney, Obama, Santorum


I don't know about Alexander


And I'd let Stein and Goode live. They haven't done anything bad.