NATION

PASSWORD

Assassination of politicians: Would it be moral?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

To what point is it morally right?

The murder of a dictator is morally right.
42
40%
It is also morally right to kill a leader if he is democratically elected.
5
5%
The 2nd and it's also OK to kill politicians for voting for bills that trample on our rights.
17
16%
The 3rd and it's also moral to punish citizens for supporting such leaders/politicians.
7
7%
It is never morally right.
35
33%
 
Total votes : 106

User avatar
Moving Forward Inc
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1770
Founded: Jul 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Assassination of politicians: Would it be moral?

Postby Moving Forward Inc » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:23 pm

If the leader of a said nation trampled on individual rights, resulting in tyranny, would it be morally right to kill such a leader?
Would your opinion change based on whether he is a Dictator or democratically elected?
If a politician voted in favor of a bill that tramples on such rights, would you see it as morally right to kill him?
If Police and Military forces protected such persons and enforced such laws, would it be morally okay to kill them?
If a person supported such politicians and leaders, with the use of donations, organizing rallies, or expression of their support for such persons, would you think it morally right to place any sort of punishment on such a person?
If so, what kind of punishment would you suggest?
Why?

I think this may be relevant to the upcoming election, lets also not forget the assassination of JFK.

For example, democrats, greens, libertarians, and myself would mostly agree that Mitt Romney's opposition to Abortion and Gay marriage shows that if put in a seat of power he would abuse it by trampling on individual rights.
A republican would say something similar about Obama: "If put in a seat of power he would abuse it by refusing to advocate the very values this great nation was founded on".
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are neck and neck in the polls, tempers are running high, and the net is being filled with opinion pieces on the election.
Before or after the election, someone could make an attempt on either candidates life.

Feel free to discuss.

Here is my opinion:
When criminals infringe on the rights of another, retaliatory force is used against them as a punishment.
I don't think things should happen any differently in the case of politicians or leaders who act like criminals, democratically elected or not.
And I'm shocked that police or military refuse to quit because such and such laws have been adopted.
But in the case of Civilians supporting such persons, I think it is their right.
They have a right to Freedom of speech and Freedom of expression, so they should be allowed to organize rallies and express support for whatever leader, politician, or party they like.
They also have a right to do whatever they want with their money, including donations to these politicians or parties.
Last edited by Moving Forward Inc on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This test is biased and has stupid questions, but anyways:
Old (from when my nation was founded):
Economic Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian:-3.67
New (11 December 2012):
Economic Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian: -5.23
Be aware that I am only so near to the centre of the economic axe because this test associates being right-wing with crony capitalism, trickle down, and letting business be held to lower standards than individuals under law.

"Democracy is the road to socialism"
- Karl Marx

User avatar
Gauntleted Fist
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10019
Founded: Aug 17, 2008
Father Knows Best State

Postby Gauntleted Fist » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:28 pm

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.

User avatar
Neu California
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1395
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Neu California » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:30 pm

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.
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little"-FDR
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist"-Dom Helder Camara
Aspie and proud
I'm a weak agnostic without atheistic or theistic leanings.

On reduced activity due to stress from the intensity of debates here


User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:32 pm

NO! Murder is wrong. That person would rightfully rule that nation, killing him/her wouldnt solve anything.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues

User avatar
Blakk Metal
Senator
 
Posts: 4468
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Blakk Metal » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:33 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:NO! Murder is wrong. That person would rightfully rule that nation, killing him/her wouldnt solve anything.

Prove it.

User avatar
Wisconsin9
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25346
Founded: May 18, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wisconsin9 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:34 pm

Moving Forward Inc wrote:If the leader of a said nation trampled on individual rights, resulting in tyranny, would it be morally right to kill such a leader?
Would your opinion change based on whether he is a Dictator or democratically elected?
If a politician voted in favor of a bill that tramples on such rights, would you see it as morally right to kill him?
If Police and Military forces protected such persons and enforced such laws, would it be morally okay to kill them?

Adolf Hitler fulfilled every single one of those criteria, and I think we're all in agreement when it comes to him.
Last edited by Jean-Luc Picard on Stardate 42359.5, edited 3 times in total.


Proud gayism enabler.
Impeach Humanity, Legalize Death Stars, Life is TheftWis/NSLV 2016

I support thermonuclear warfare. Do you?
Call me Wis. Seriously.
It sounds stupid when you call me Wisconsin or Wisconsin9.

User avatar
AETEN II
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12950
Founded: Aug 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby AETEN II » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:34 pm

When he starts killing citizens, I strongly believe that .50 fired from a mile away is the best way to dispose of a despot monster. Unless you can extract them for a trial at the Hague, bag em'. Especially guys like Assad.
"Quod Vult, Valde Valt"

Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.


Nationstatelandsville wrote:"Why'd the chicken cross the street?"

"Because your dad's a whore."

"...He died a week ago."

"Of syphilis, I bet."

Best Gif on the internet.

User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:34 pm

Blakk Metal wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:NO! Murder is wrong. That person would rightfully rule that nation, killing him/her wouldnt solve anything.

Prove it.

If he is the leader, he rightfully rules it. Obama is the rightful leader of the USA as of now.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues

User avatar
Romalae
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1113
Founded: May 31, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Romalae » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:35 pm

The politician(s) would have to be performing in an extremely nefarious nature to justify this.
If you give a man fire, he'll be warm for a night. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence. ~Charles Bukowski

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

User avatar
Virana
II Roleplay Mentor
 
Posts: 2461
Founded: Jan 04, 2012
New York Times Democracy

Postby Virana » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:40 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Blakk Metal wrote:Prove it.

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

Because most of the country wanted him to be leader.

That's not the case for many in the world. What makes them rightful? And killing them can make a difference and solve some problems, whether efficiently or not (I disagree with interventionist policies like that but you can't say they're useless). If you want a single example: the Iraq War.

(of course, it was illegally launched to take out some magical nukes that the CIA thought Iraq had hidden from the UN observers. They only decided to take Saddam out when they realized he was now an enemy and that there were no nukes)

For a much better, more agreeable answer, as someone else mentioned above, Adolf Hitler. He was even democratically elected. Would you consider him the rightful ruler who didn't need someone to intervene?
I'm an II Mentor. If you need help, TG me or join our IRC channel, #NSMentors on irc.esper.net!

The official IC name is United Republic of Emmeria.
National Archive: Info - Leaders - Armed Forces - Foreign Affairs - Map - United Press - CDI - Guide to making official seals on GIMP
DEFCON: 5 - [4] - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 - DBA


[01:17] <NB> "And in year 6000, our Lord rode a velocoraptor into Sodom..."
[01:20] <Kyrusia> I was waiting for someone to reference Jesus, Sodom, and a dinosaur in the same sentece.
[01:20] <Kyrusia> I've been waiting decades.

User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:41 pm

Virana wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:If he is the leader, he rightfully rules it. Obama is the rightful leader of the USA as of now.

Because most of the country wanted him to be leader.

That's not the case for many in the world. What makes them rightful? And killing them can make a difference and solve some problems, whether efficiently or not (I disagree with interventionist policies like that but you can't say they're useless). If you want a single example: the Iraq War.

(of course, it was illegally launched to take out some magical nukes that the CIA thought Iraq had hidden from the UN observers. They only decided to take Saddam out when they realized he was now an enemy and that there were no nukes)

For a much better, more agreeable answer, as someone else mentioned above, Adolf Hitler. He was even democratically elected. Would you consider him the rightful ruler who didn't need someone to intervene?

He was evil, and not the best leader, but he was the rightful leader of Deutchland. The Germans choose him, and he ruled. He was the rightful leader, although evil.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues

User avatar
Moving Forward Inc
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1770
Founded: Jul 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Moving Forward Inc » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:43 pm

This is interesting.
4 opinions so far, all of which are different.
Gauntleted Fist wrote: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?
Neu California wrote: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.
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote: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?
This test is biased and has stupid questions, but anyways:
Old (from when my nation was founded):
Economic Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian:-3.67
New (11 December 2012):
Economic Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian: -5.23
Be aware that I am only so near to the centre of the economic axe because this test associates being right-wing with crony capitalism, trickle down, and letting business be held to lower standards than individuals under law.

"Democracy is the road to socialism"
- Karl Marx

User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:46 pm

Moving Forward Inc wrote:This is interesting.
4 opinions so far, all of which are different.
Gauntleted Fist wrote: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?
Neu California wrote: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.
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote: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?

No. That would be justified.
If he leads the nation, he rules it rightfully whether he is good or bad at leading it.
Thats nothing special.
No. If he is leader, picked democraticly, chosen as heir to a monarchy, or whatever he is the rightful leader.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues

User avatar
Moving Forward Inc
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1770
Founded: Jul 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Moving Forward Inc » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:47 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Virana wrote:Because most of the country wanted him to be leader.

That's not the case for many in the world. What makes them rightful? And killing them can make a difference and solve some problems, whether efficiently or not (I disagree with interventionist policies like that but you can't say they're useless). If you want a single example: the Iraq War.

(of course, it was illegally launched to take out some magical nukes that the CIA thought Iraq had hidden from the UN observers. They only decided to take Saddam out when they realized he was now an enemy and that there were no nukes)

For a much better, more agreeable answer, as someone else mentioned above, Adolf Hitler. He was even democratically elected. Would you consider him the rightful ruler who didn't need someone to intervene?

He was evil, and not the best leader, but he was the rightful leader of Deutchland. The Germans choose him, and he ruled. He was the rightful leader, although evil.

Although the party which received the most votes was the National Socialist party, the majority of Germans voted for another party.
If all Germans had an equal say in whether the war should take place or not, I think the war would have not happened.
So what would you say in Hitler's defence?
This test is biased and has stupid questions, but anyways:
Old (from when my nation was founded):
Economic Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian:-3.67
New (11 December 2012):
Economic Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian: -5.23
Be aware that I am only so near to the centre of the economic axe because this test associates being right-wing with crony capitalism, trickle down, and letting business be held to lower standards than individuals under law.

"Democracy is the road to socialism"
- Karl Marx

User avatar
Moving Forward Inc
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1770
Founded: Jul 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Moving Forward Inc » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:49 pm

Romalae wrote:The politician(s) would have to be performing in an extremely nefarious nature to justify this.

What would you define as "an extremely nefarious nature"?
This test is biased and has stupid questions, but anyways:
Old (from when my nation was founded):
Economic Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian:-3.67
New (11 December 2012):
Economic Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian: -5.23
Be aware that I am only so near to the centre of the economic axe because this test associates being right-wing with crony capitalism, trickle down, and letting business be held to lower standards than individuals under law.

"Democracy is the road to socialism"
- Karl Marx

User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:50 pm

Moving Forward Inc wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:He was evil, and not the best leader, but he was the rightful leader of Deutchland. The Germans choose him, and he ruled. He was the rightful leader, although evil.

Although the party which received the most votes was the National Socialist party, the majority of Germans voted for another party.
If all Germans had an equal say in whether the war should take place or not, I think the war would have not happened.
So what would you say in Hitler's defence?

Well he had the support of the German people, and even the people he conquered. He was reuniting the Germanic peoples. Few Germans opposed the war. So on.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues

User avatar
PapaJacky
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1478
Founded: Apr 16, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby PapaJacky » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:51 pm

Deaths create martyrs.

User avatar
Romalae
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1113
Founded: May 31, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Romalae » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:52 pm

Moving Forward Inc wrote:
Romalae wrote:The politician(s) would have to be performing in an extremely nefarious nature to justify this.

What would you define as "an extremely nefarious nature"?


Probably blatantly murdering or significantly infringing upon the human rights of citizens.
If you give a man fire, he'll be warm for a night. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence. ~Charles Bukowski

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

User avatar
Atollus
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 362
Founded: Feb 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Atollus » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:53 pm

Personally, I think that if a leader, elected or otherwise, tramples over civil and human rights, and can't be removed by other means in a reasonable time frame. Assassination is really the only way to go. That and a party and national holiday for whoever makes the decisive shot. Hell make it a contest.
Patriotic Social Democrat
Political test results

User avatar
Moving Forward Inc
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1770
Founded: Jul 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Moving Forward Inc » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:54 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Moving Forward Inc wrote:Although the party which received the most votes was the National Socialist party, the majority of Germans voted for another party.
If all Germans had an equal say in whether the war should take place or not, I think the war would have not happened.
So what would you say in Hitler's defence?

Well he had the support of the German people, and even the people he conquered. He was reuniting the Germanic peoples. Few Germans opposed the war. So on.

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?
This test is biased and has stupid questions, but anyways:
Old (from when my nation was founded):
Economic Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian:-3.67
New (11 December 2012):
Economic Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian: -5.23
Be aware that I am only so near to the centre of the economic axe because this test associates being right-wing with crony capitalism, trickle down, and letting business be held to lower standards than individuals under law.

"Democracy is the road to socialism"
- Karl Marx

User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:57 pm

Moving Forward Inc wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:Well he had the support of the German people, and even the people he conquered. He was reuniting the Germanic peoples. Few Germans opposed the war. So on.

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. :meh:
...Mob rule?
A leader can trump rights whether he is elected or not.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues

User avatar
Moving Forward Inc
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1770
Founded: Jul 10, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Moving Forward Inc » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:58 pm

Will be making a poll.
This test is biased and has stupid questions, but anyways:
Old (from when my nation was founded):
Economic Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian:-3.67
New (11 December 2012):
Economic Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian: -5.23
Be aware that I am only so near to the centre of the economic axe because this test associates being right-wing with crony capitalism, trickle down, and letting business be held to lower standards than individuals under law.

"Democracy is the road to socialism"
- Karl Marx

User avatar
Bahavus
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Jul 05, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Bahavus » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:01 pm

Disclaimer: Bahavus doesn't represent my real values, it's just for the fun of torturing non-existant people.


I think it'd be moral if the governor were a tyrant of any kind..... as long as it wasn't organized by another potential dictator.

User avatar
Lackadaisical2
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 50774
Founded: Mar 03, 2008
Anarchy

Postby Lackadaisical2 » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 pm

I wouldn't ever encourage illegal activities.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.

Next

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aerterna, Ashmoria, Ballotonia, Bolkania, Bunkeranlage, Cerbergo, Christiaanistan, Conkerials, Fesconia, Gallade, Google [Bot], Ifreann, Immoren, Imperializt Russia, KASSRD, Kranstentistan, Kyuji, L Ron Cupboard, Laan, Liecthenbourg, Lithuania-Latvia, Maineiacs, Malgrave, Murkwood, Nierr, Norstal, Quelsh, Scholmeria, Separatist Peoples, Sklavinia, Suicune, The Grey Wolf, Tlaceceyaya, Vectrova, Yellow Yellow Red

Remove ads