NationStates

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:

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.

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.

Of course. Liberty is more important than life.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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"?

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.

Deaths create martyrs.

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.

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.

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?

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.
...Mob rule?
A leader can trump rights whether he is elected or not.

Will be making a poll.

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.

I wouldn't ever encourage illegal activities.