Justification for Political Violence

[samhain]

I'm curious to see what board members think.

At what point would you, Dem, Republican, Independent, etc; think it was okay to take the life of someone who disagreed with you politically?

Would you be okay with it if it facilitated a better future for the nation in your eyes? For your kids and whatnot?

Would you be okay with it if the government in power at a given time endorsed the violence and guaranteed you zero legal accountability for your actions?

Would you be fine with it if it eliminated a perceived "social cancer" that was negatively impacting the overall good of the nation?

Would you be indifferent as long as it was happening at a safe-ish distance from your doorstep?

Would it be justifiable if it vastly improved the economic outlook for you personally or the nation overall?

Is it justifiable on religious grounds, ie holy war ordered by a representative of God himself?

Would it only be justifiable as a means of protecting one's own life in the instance of a direct threat?

Is it justified if you think an electoral or legal decision is unfair or fraudulent? Are these aforementioned outcomes just too much for the current legal system to handle effectively without a show of violent force from the populace?

[Dill]

(06-16-2024, 10:24 AM)samhain Wrote: Is it justifiable on religious grounds, ie holy war ordered by a representative of God himself?

For me, needs to be God himself, no representatives. Doesn't have to give the order in person, though. Could be on tv, though, through the right channel.

(06-16-2024, 10:24 AM)samhain Wrote: Is it justified if you think an electoral or legal decision is unfair or fraudulent?  Are these aforementioned outcomes just

too much for the current legal system to handle effectively without a show of violent force from the populace?

These are the serious questions. 

But there are matters of degree here. E.g. there is a vast difference between an unfair legal decision which makes me liable for an
auto accident I did not cause, and one which, through fraudulent means, hands the country back to a president legally voted out of office,
who will then use his office to persecute political opponents and to break down check and balances on his power. 

Regarding the first question, generally now, political killing is not justified if I merely THINK an electoral or legal decision is unfair or fraudulent, even if a lot of my friends THINK so too. There would have to be preponderance of evidence beyond "truthiness," transparently evaluated by competent public authorities.  Taking an aggrieved politician's word over the msm, FBI and the courts would not satisfy this burden of proof.  I think the resolution of the 2000 elections was resolved unfairly, but not clearly so, and not clearly illegally. So the burden was not met there.

Were there another coup attempt after the '24 election, more organized and successful than the last and involving participation of state legislatures in, say, GA and AZ, then it would still not give me right, as an individual, to decide whether and which political adversaries deserved killing, and to act on that decision, though it might legitimate the use of deadly collective force in some circumstances to restore democracy.

Regarding the second question, if you are asking whether the current system might sort out a corrupt election without violence, 
then, for the first time since the Civil War, the answer is "we don't really know." Not a comforting answer.  

Are you asking whether it might be left for "the populace" to prevent usurpation, to hold the system in place? I don't see that ever happening. 

Which side would the majority of militias and heavily armed 2A advocates be on, if the usurper were Trump? 

The first line of resistance to another fraudulent election would be in the deep state itself, civil servants who refused to carry out anti-democratic actions, along with Congress (along party lines). This would include resistance in the military chain of command. The present SCOTUS could not be relied upon to invalidate the fraud. (Not saying it wouildn't; just that we can't know.)

That would mean paralysis and chaos. The majority of the population and states would NOT back the fraud if they can be satisfied there was fraud.  

[Arturo Bandini]

What is a 'God representative' ?

All of them are self called ... As far as I know.

[samhain]

(06-18-2024, 08:52 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: What is a 'God representative' ?

All of them are self called ... As far as I know.

Anyone can claim it.  It takes a following for it to matter.

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-18-2024, 05:40 PM)samhain Wrote: Anyone can claim it.  It takes a following for it to matter.

Does that include scientology ? They have followers. 

Or Pastafarism ?