Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ibid Straydrink]

If you're framing somebody to stop them from getting lawfully elected, you're the bad guy.

So, attempting to assassinate a tyrant is wrong, because it's against the law?

Law = morality, or..?

Not because it's against the law, but because if he gets elected, it's what the people want.

AH, so if the people want to elect a dictator, a man who will do their peers harm despite working within the law, or a walrus, it's just?

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

If you're framing somebody to stop them from getting lawfully elected, you're the bad guy.

So, attempting to assassinate a tyrant is wrong, because it's against the law?

Law = morality, or..?

Probably more a case of "You stoop down to their level."
I dunno, it feels like... Man, it's hard to explain, it's like calling a swat team on a fat, mean-spirited slob who lives in an otherwise nice neighborhood, Trump is a bad guy, for sure, but if you can't find any real damning dirt on him, then he's either smart enough to hide it from millions who want to find it out, or he's just sorta an bumbling idiot with a big ego.
I understand that at this point underestimating his rabid support from fans is just folly, but I feel like it's gonna end like Tony Abbot ended up, he's a... What's the word, Demigouge? Someone who exploits other peoples emotions for their own gain, and I just don't think he flip-flopping behavior is going to see him very far.
Whatever, I don't into politics and on top of that I'm tired, if anyone can explain what makes me wrong I would sincerely like to hear it.

AH, so if the people want to elect a dictator, a man who will do their peers harm despite working within the law, or a walrus, it's just?

...
Yeah? It would be depressing, but the other option would be something like a monarchy or communist society.

[Ibid Straydrink]

If you can call an invisible, undetectable death-squad onto a tyrant or tyrannical regime without being caught, and get away with it, I'm inclined to believe that it's not only acceptable- it's an ethical imperative.

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

Maybe, but at that point, wouldn't you just be some sort of... Uh...
What would the name be for some sort of government which chooses candidates based only on which person a group or singular entity likes the most? Illumaonarchy?

[RedKing]

Herein lies one of the core dilemmas of US foreign policy since the end of WWII. We claim to love democracy and want to encourage its spread throughout the world, but we have a track record of assassinating or toppling democratically-elected leaders who we see as "undemocratic". What you're arguing is that those actions were ethically justified, which is a tough sell.

EDIT:
It also sets a very bad precedent. Sorta like how the Praetorian Guard killing bad Emperors was a *good* thing at first, but rather rapidly devolved into "pay the Praetorians enough, and you can get the current guy whacked".

[Ibid Straydrink]

Maybe, but at that point, wouldn't you just be some sort of... Uh...
What would the name be for some sort of government which chooses candidates based only on which person a group or singular entity likes the most? Illumaonarchy?

I'm not familiar with the term, and cannot find anything on it, but thank you all the same. I am, admittedly, absolutely biased, as I believe that if you could have an Aurelius or an Alexander or even a Napoleon rule for veritable eternity, with limited powers and counter balances, it would be considerably better than leaving the state in the hands of the people and their representatives. Again so long as principles are upheld, any means are acceptable. Honesty, has never been a realistic aspect of politics.

What you're arguing is that those actions were ethically justified, which is a tough sell.

Not in every instance. But, ultimately, you're bound to the interests and well-being of a certain group, or "Empire," and it might be best to disregard the inconsequential negatives beyond that, until the means to right wrongs and control unfortunate occurrences without sacrifices to one's priority interests presents itself.

[Reelya]

How about in almost no instances? It's as simple as actually looking into what the USA usually gets up to.

The two alternatives are "the USA overthrew a fascist dictatorship, in order to restore democracy" vs "the USA overthrew a functioning democracy, in order to impose a friendly fascist dictator". Sadly #2 is far more common in history.

Other than WWII, there are basically no cases where America stepped in during a coup to protect democracy, anywhere. One example is Panama, where there was a military coup in 1968 which overthrew democracy. And Panama is a country with massive ties to the USA. But USA didn't give a single shit and threw their lot in with the brutal dictators, and actually shielded Noriega from drug smuggling charges for a couple of decades. Then, once the Cold War was over, Noriega (a Cold War ally) became a liability, and a great excuse to practice for the upcoming Iraq invasion. Suddenly, America pulls out all the anti-Noriega stuff they'd known about for decades, and the USA speaks of restoring democracy, 21 years too late ...

[Ibid Straydrink]

Honestly, I'm not sure why one would want to restore or instate democracy to begin with- it's a bad form of government. Folks forget, in the USA, only property owners could vote. Madinson mentions that this design was to ensure that the wealthy (those tied to the government, whom lended them money) and well-educated were the intended movers and shakers of  the gov't. While the modern USA is a democratic republic, it began with near-aristocratic elements, despite the pandering.

[SaberToothTiger]

Corporationism ain't good either.

Or dictatorships.

I am fond of monarchies, however.

[Ibid Straydrink]

Corporationism ain't good either.

Or dictatorships.

I am fond of monarchies, however.

Hereditary or elective monarchies? And on what basis? Don't leave the good folk hanging!

[Reelya]

Honestly, I'm not sure why one would want to restore or instate democracy to begin with- it's a bad form of government. Folks forget, in the USA, only property owners could vote. Madinson mentions that this design was to ensure that the wealthy (those tied to the government, whom lended them money) and well-educated were the intended movers and shakers of  the gov't. While the modern USA is a democratic republic, it began with near-aristocratic elements, despite the pandering.

Look, we're not talking some abstract concept of the best form of government here, or 18th century legal precepts. We're talking the modern USA stepping in to overthrow reasonably decent liberal places to live, and replacing their functioning governments with insane death squads. When people criticize the American-backed latin regimes, it's not because of some abstract belief in democracy, it's because those governments tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

The Colombian right-wing government supporters have a strong reputation for carving up children with chainsaws. America is directly implicated in the plan to create those groups. And the regular Colombian army isn't much better, they regularly abducted teens, dressed them up as rebels and shot them in fields, then claimed they killed rebels in firefights, because they get cash bonuses and promotions based on kill-counts. All well documented and going on at least as recently as 2008 (I haven't kept up with the news). Colombia also leads the world in trade union murders. Literally leads the world - some years over 50% of the worldwide union-leader murders were in just Colombia. Yet Bush jnr called them a model democracy that the rest of South America could learn from.

Colombia are a "democracy" in name only, and by far the most brutal government in the hemisphere. The right-wing party has private death squads that target anyone on the other side of politics, and they are "somehow" the biggest receivers of US military aid in the western hemisphere. They are a basketcase and the single biggest military threat to their neighbors of any south American country. Yet, Bush was propping them up and trying to turn them into a superpower: in 2008 they bombed Equador and threatened Venezuela when Venezuela spoke out against the bombing. Colombia and USA denounced Equador/Venezuala (which were once under Colombian rule) as terrorist states. Colombia was gearing up to start a war of aggression (they have the biggest army in south America) and America was saying they'd back Colombia. It was only averted when literally everyone else in South America formed a regional military alliance to avert the war. USA then talked down this regional alliance (now known as the South American Defence Council) as a flash in the pan, whereas they were talking up a rogue right-wing nation basically declaring war on all it's neighboring countries. So, yeah, excuse me being cynical about the USA supposedly coming in to restore order.

[Loud Whispers]

Maybe, but at that point, wouldn't you just be some sort of... Uh...
What would the name be for some sort of government which chooses candidates based only on which person a group or singular entity likes the most? Illumaonarchy?

I could appreciate an honest illumaonarchy, we need to get corruption out of shadow government to stop illegal ayyyliens mining pluto

[BFEL]

If you can call an invisible, undetectable death-squad onto a tyrant or tyrannical regime without being caught, and get away with it, I'm inclined to believe that it's not only acceptable- it's an ethical imperative.

If you can call an invisible, undetectable death-squad on someone WHO HASN'T BEEN ELECTED YET/HASN'T DONE ANYTHING TYRANNICAL YET, *YOU* are the fucking tyrant.

Pre-emptive revolutions are no different from any other form of tyranny.

[Loud Whispers]

If you can call an invisible, undetectable death-squad on someone WHO HASN'T BEEN ELECTED YET/HASN'T DONE ANYTHING TYRANNICAL YET, *YOU* are the fucking tyrant.
Pre-emptive revolutions are no different from any other form of tyranny.

NO BAD TACTICS
ONLY BAD TARGETS
BRING BACK NAPOLEON, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

[Morrigi]

If you can call an invisible, undetectable death-squad onto a tyrant or tyrannical regime without being caught, and get away with it, I'm inclined to believe that it's not only acceptable- it's an ethical imperative.

Sounds like something a tyrant would say. I hate to invoke Poe's Law, but replace "tyrannical regime" with "Communist regime" or "international Jewry" and suddenly you're Hitler.