With "the ballot" the same issue occurs as with "the bullet." Simply having elections does not produce good governance nor "progress," nor justice, nor liberty. There are plenty of examples of extremely dysfunctional nations that nonetheless host relatively free and fair elections. There are important prerequisites for self-determination; many I'd argue are more important than democracy (and indeed, they can be eroded by democracy or liberalism/consumerism in some cases). Republican government might crown the achievement of self-governance, and it might even be a means towards it (although by no means a foolproof one), since it creates a system where poor leadership is punished (of course, in dysfunctional democracies, good leadership is often punished and demagoguery rewarded). But people who cannot govern themselves as individuals can hardly be expected to collectively each other. It's the same way worker's collectives could create great workplaces, but often didn't. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If "the ballot" and "the bullet" are the same then it shouldn't matter which anyone chooses -- it's the results that matter.

I don't think you believe this at all I'm more asking you to clarify that assertion.

Too often I think we tend to think of democracy as a good in itself. Perhaps it is, or at least can be. It can lead to people taking a strong ownership over the common good. It hardly seems to today though. Likewise with the right to bear arms. But it seems obvious that places like the Republic of Korea and Singapore have provided for not only a better life, but even a better commonwealth and form of citizenship without full democracy than places like Afghanistan and Iraq had despite having free and fair elections. So too, there are plenty of places that are awash with weapons with little by way of liberty or a common wealth; the Central African Republic is a fine example. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am a skeptic of liberal democracy in the sense usually meant: A representative government with a division of powers and rules which define when and who gets to be the decider, and various rights to property.

Not that I wanted to be, but *gestures at the world*

But I don't think we're democratic exactly -- so while we're responsible for our government's actions we're also not in charge of what they do, no matter how hard you try.

I suppose I'd believe democracy doesn't work once I see it in action. At least a little bit more than a first-past-the-post representative government with an electoral college wherein money is what heavily determines who gets to be the decider, wherein the parties draw their own districts, and wherein the intelligence agencies of the government infiltrate social movements in order to disrupt them so that we remain the same.

That's the whole schtick, ": But." The 'but' is the whole point here, and the colon is apt. The rest is just the necessary window dressing needed to get to the 'but'. The caveat on not deserving murder is also pretty wild.

"Fucked up" is the correct description here. — Leontiskos

I hope you've seen I've said as much.

You're right that ": But" is the whole schtick -- that's the question I'm posing.

When is the schtick justified, if ever?

That we live in a fucked up world is part of my lament here.

The fact is that almost everyone speaks out in horror against this assassination, but I would argue that there are far more people than people think who behind those words have no problem with it happening. — Christoffer

Oh, I'm unfortunately aware of such sentiments.

It's not just one person, let's say.

This is how polarized things have become. In which people play some charade of thoughts and prayers, but view each other as mortal enemies.

So when does this "cold war" become an actual war? When does it become something in which people openly accept themselves to be on a side that shoots the other, rather than playing the charade?

Is the current situation in the US, and even globally, between the far right and most people left of that far right... enough of a divide to spark warranted violence to balance things back from that extreme?

Good question.

I want to focus on this notion of "balance", in particular, because that seems to be a concept in play in these discussions -- if we could trust one another well enough that what the other does, even if I wouldn't do it, then "balance" is at least adjacent to a good goal.

But we don't live in a time where "balance" is possible.

I don't know if the violence is warranted. That's the question, in the face of the absurd world we live in.

If the political extreme is whatever sparks consequences of death for people in a society, be that direct or indirect (suicides or being left to die), is it warranted to violently fight back at the extreme that caused it? If society can't use rule of law and democratic methods to fight that extreme and that extreme worms its way into actual government... does that warrant revolutionary violence against this status quo?

In hindsight we look back at regimes and wonder why no one fought back before it became this regime. But I would argue that the time before those regimes look almost exactly as how it is now. We can't know if the US marches towards an authoritarian regime before it actually happens.

So is this a time that we in the future will look back on and wonder... why didn't anyone do anything before it was too late?

Will the assassin who tried to kill Trump be viewed as a hero who failed if we end up in a dictatorship under Trump? Like operation Valkyrie?

That's similar to the reflection I'm having.

To define what warrants political violence as being good demands perfect knowledge of the future. Maybe many previous successful assassinations actually prevented something we didn't know would happen, no one knows.

If so then we never have warrant for political violence, since no one has perfect knowledge of the future.

Most of what you said is screamingly obvious.

The absurd situation is when the screamingly obvious doesn't even register -- what had been bad or good or indifferent isn't even named or thought about.

For myself, at least, when I reflect from a position that wants pacifism I end up here: So the world hates this idea because it's(EDIT: "violence is") justified sometimes.

How and when? It feels so absurd.

When rule of law doesn't function and democracy is being manipulated... what purpose does the ballot have? — Christoffer

Not the one I'd like.

It's why I think The Dead Zone is a really good philosophical experiment for this topic. — Christoffer

I agree that hits the topic.

I'm still thinking through and so didn't address your thoughts in between, but wanted to say something.

Once that happens, the military will have to make a choice whether to uphold Trump or the constitution. If they choose Trump, then the only recourse is states leaving the union and people fighting back if the army tries to stop it. — Mikie

The military is very Republican, and basically is into war. So that doesn't give me high hopes, but is realistic.

Right. Let's stick to that, then, please. As the OP, it would be more effective if you correct those who deviate from your purported line of discussion. — Outlander

Admittedly it's not an easy thing to broach -- hence the discussion.

I'm still wrapping my mind around this absurd world we live in.

Two days ago The Guardian published The Gaza family torn apart by IDF snipers from Chicago and Munich.

The quote that pops to mind:

Raab, a former varsity basketball player from a Chicago suburb who became an Israeli sniper, concedes he knew that. He says he shot Salem simply because he tried to retrieve the body of his beloved older brother Mohammed.

“It’s hard for me to understand why he [did that] and it also doesn’t really interest me,” Raab says in a video interview posted on X. “I mean, what was so important about that corpse?”

As for the OP question: sometimes violence is necessary, yeah. When all else fails. Should have been more violence against the Nazis as they were coming to power. — Mikie

But when and why?

If we can only say it in retrospect -- i.e. the Nazis -- then that's not exactly a guide to when and why.

Typical Jesus hyperbole. But when it is exemplified for once it seems an appropriate lament.

But I prefer this sentiment, from the American Jesus, addressed to the Masters of the 2nd amendment:

And I hope that you die
And your death’ll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand o’er your grave
’Til I’m sure that you’re dead
— Bob Dylan, Masters of War — unenlightened

Makes sense to me.

****

One of the things I'm noticing is that we are a country constantly at war.

And it's not like soldiers disappear after the war.

In a way what we're seeing is bringing the ethics of the front to the political sphere: the rhetoric for violence doesn't even register as violent. And the actual daily violence isn't spoken about -- people are actually persecuted for being too outspoken about -- until it's a talking head.

In a way this is me expressing my fear at my own numbness at murder. It shouldn't be this way, but here we are.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of looking at this assassination as some isolated event. This is a symptom of our polarized times.

Fighting polarization is the way to mitigate the risks of political violence, and fighting polarization requires us to stop being so naive to the effects of hate speech; of its capacity to move the goal posts of the general public into slowly hating others more and more.

Stop the hateful rhetoric, stop the dehumanization of groups of people in society, stop the dehumanization of political sides. People need to stop being so fucking naive and stupid about these things that erodes society. — Christoffer

I don't see it as an isolated event. That's why I'm bringing Malcolm X and the genocide in Gaza as points of reflection, though I see that also caused confusion: I still don't have this thought, well, fully thought out. That's why I posted on it.

In general the question is the justification of political violence: whether we choose the ballot or the bullet as a political and ethical question, and the various justifications about that.

Would that I could wave a magic wand and restore such trust -- but there's more to it than rhetoric, I think. There are material reasons for the rhetoric.

I can see how these themes are disparate. I went ahead and lounged the thread for that reason.

I still want to think through this, though.

The absurdity that I see is in the various shows of horror at political violence. Malcolm X is a person whose opinions on political violence I respect with a coherent cause that makes sense of political violence: the continued oppression against the black community by the powers that be. It makes sense for a person to question the ballot when they cannot vote.

In some sense this is a similar condition to our own revolution: that there was a court and King with say over us as a colony is the justification for founding a state.

Kirk's assassination is the sort of thing that's so small, though, in comparison to what our government is doing -- which, in turn, if we are Americans, that is what we are at least responsible for.

Further, no matter who we vote for our government will continue down this path.

So while I don't know this assassin's motivation I can't help but wonder at the absurdity of condemning it with so much blood on our hands.

I'll go on record with what ought be an obvious sentiment, which is that the capital murderer who assassinated a young father of two from a rooftop with likely a hunting rifle was not an anti-hero who meted out any sort of just dessert, but a useless coward who is in desperate need of .justice from those hunting him down as he hides among innocent students. — Hanover

What he was I don't know -- I don't want to cast him as an anti-hero at all, at least, and I want to assure you that this makes sense to me.

His was an act of pure evil, worthy of nothing but unequivocal condemnation, unnuanced, with no hidden irony, intelligence or purpose that could possibly give us reason to think it had an ounce of good within it. — Hanover

I can't go that far -- else I would not have posed the question. But the sentiment is appreciated because that's sort of the quandary, on the ethical side.

I don't care to go into his particulars in the sense of just desserts because that sounds like a good way to have a bad time while not addressing the question.

One thing about political violence, in the United States, is that we're a country founded on revolution. And not all those acts were exactly good -- these acts are part and parcel of how we do business, even civilly.

In such a world I don't want to set up heroes and anti-heroes. That'd lead to even more death -- as much of a cynic as I am I do think all life is important, even Mr Kirk's.

Eh, I think this is too big picture.

The United States is not a democracy because of so many reasons. The easiest way to see this is to look at the polls of what people want and see what politicians vote for.

The hard way to see this is to look at what Citizen's United exacerbated.

I like the idea of "I trust you enough that if I don't win it'll carry on"

But these are fascists that want to eliminate gays and make sure we're a Christian nation and continue to make war.

I'd be, unfortunately, verified in my beliefs.

And, yeah, not give them up. We don't live in a time when "giving them up" is something we can do.

I don't claim this event in any political movement way -- I'm using it as a means to broach the question about the lameness of voting in the United States.

Malcolm was right.

Once you realize it's not just a "this time" but an "every time I'm going to lose" -- what else is there?

Being funneled into NGO's that blow smoke up your ass, or....?

Which is what brought me to the question: If you can't outvote Trump, et al., what's the other option?

To Gaza? No. Nothing pertinent.

It's the responses to it -- like Donald Trumps -- that made me think this way. "Well... c'mon Trump how many kids have you authorized to be killed today?"

I said that about Obama before if that's a worry. And Biden. etc.

But now we live in a time when we're actively supplying weapons to Israel who is committing a genocide.

Yet the media harps on about the shame of what was a talking head and memorializing it.

It does.

Or, if if it doesn't, as you bemoaned this is not a thread on regulating weapons.

This is a thread that could apply to people in Britain, Spain, Germany, etc. etc. can participate in.

It doesn't matter.

It relates because thems could have taken the means into their own hands and forced the gov to not take their land other than "move on" to be vagabonds elsewhere.

Oh, suppose I say, "There is a genocide in Gaza", then the response -- not from you but due to media -- would be "Israel has a right to defend itself"

But that's not what they're doing. They're committing a genocide.

Yet if they succeed, as the United States did, they'll win. If they eliminate everyone then they'll get to keep the land. We passed on the genocide stick to them.

How do you vote to influence that?

The reason the 2nd amendment is germane but off topic is that it's not how you'd pursue the bullet -- you don't revolt by appealing to the supreme court that your revolution is justified because of the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, they are, but I want to sideline that notion for this topic.

Yet the question is -- the ballot or the bullet? How do we justify each position, philosophically?

Just doing my job, sir.

And, yeah, it's a disturbing thought.

Can we not appreciate the irony AND be disgusted by the reaction to a political assassination? — DingoJones

Sure.

I'm still disgusted with the means of politics. I've often found that raising this disgust about other such scenarios results in excuses so I'm a bit skeptical.

I want to point to the genocide in Gaza at the moment more than this sensationalist plot in asking the question, though. I am looking for a wider perspective than this one event.

Since Kirk was an outspoken 2nd amendment proponent, and was literally killed while answering questions about shootings, the whole firearm thing seems germane. — RogueAI

OK -- in that way I'm interested in a 2nd amendment discussion, but I want it to be a sub-plot: first political violence in the world and then 2nd amendment.

Vice-versa I feel like, tho this is germane, it'd turn into a debate we've had many times before, whereas I'm trying to use a case which might spark some thoughts that aren't the talking points.

Charlie Kirk is a complete unknown to me. Every day anonymous strangers are killed whom I cannot mourn. — BC

I envy your position lol.

I think organizing is the only way out, which I take to be the same as what you say here, with anarchist modifications:

we are not at that day now, and we do not seem to be on the verge of that day.

Vigorous, focused, competent political activism is still a better bet for a civil society, good government, — BC

Can we not turn this into a discussion about firearms? Is that remotely possibly here? — Outlander

I have no desire to turn this discussion towards the 2nd amendment and all that -- I've stated my case that I'm in favor of the Australian buy-back program, in some capacity.

I'm asking about what a group ought do when they realize voting not only didn't work this one time, but won't work because it's set up that way.

Consider the Electoral College that still exists in thinking about this.

Yeah...

Even so I think this way, or try to:

31
Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

I feel like it's bad of me, but it is how I feel -- making your own bed and all.

We must carry on, yes.

I'm using Malcolm X as a philosopher. He has a point -- I guess the question is, philosophically, "How do we carry on?"

We don't know.

Also, the motivation doesn't matter to the question: I am inspired by the current event, but am broaching a larger question about political philosophy.

Here the bullet was used, whatever the motivation.

Oddly the ballot could not be used against a speaker that seems to have influence -- was there a politician who said, "Defund Charlie Kirk"?

Probably somewhere if we dig deep enough but you know that voting for that politician wouldn't do anything to his private career that happened to be political.

I remember you talking about the group of anarchists you housed with.

I figured you'd prefer if they could stay rather than be pushed out.

Suppose you encounter a government official who as ejected you from some grounds on the basis that the municipality claims those grounds and your people don't meet code.

Is that the same? Would you avoid having your sentiments outraged? Let them speak their words, even though those words result in your collective being ousted?

Which is the political question: The Ballot or the Bullet?

How do we, in a philosophical sense, tackle this question?

Charlie Kirk didn't deserve what happened to him in the sense that all he did made him worthy of punishment: But we're in a time when speakers of movements are legitimate targets for the propaganda by the deed.

And -- c'mon, he really was in favor of the 2nd amendment even if it results in gun violence.

I don't celebrate political violence, and I don't condemn it -- it's like condemning physics -- this is how we still do things.

6 days ago PBS said over 60,000

The part that makes me wonder is how much violence we're already responsible for.

And that is pretty fucked up.

If people aren't familiar with Malcolm X then the question I'm posing is with respect to political violence and its justifications.

The bread-and-butter interpretation I'd give is: if the ballot works then sure.

But if it doesn't, then there's only one unfortunate answer.

There is, in addition, a certain irony that Charlie Kirk advocated for the 2nd amendment on the basis that random murder is the price to pay for freedom.

I added a link to my OP to give context for the thought.

The only part that I see in the guidelines is:

Social media

We want to encourage thoughtful posts, not just share quote-tweet or viral clips with little to no substance. As a result, posts containing links and embeds to social media are deleted, shorts as well

Unless I'm missing something, at least. I could be.

The reason I post this is because of the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk. It's also a classic speech for political philosophy and worth visiting on its own right, but that event is why I thought of this.

It does when I think on it in a universal sense -- it's not like I know which way is what. That's sort of Kant's point: Keep on arguing which way you want, it'll be interesting, but it won't effect scientific knowledge and you'll never know which is what.

If Kant thought it worthy addressing philosophically then I have a hard time arguing determinism isn't even plausible in the manner you described.