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. — Moliere

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

Why? If we’re assess that a person, a movement, a cult, a government, etc., will cause great destruction / murder / suffering in the future. No one has a crystal ball, but there is good evidence.

As to when— once certain lines are crossed. I think the Trump administration has pretty much crossed those lines, but I look for the ignoring of court holdings — provided the Supreme Court’s Trump-appointed members don’t continually rubber stamp his blatantly illegal moves. 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.

But that’s me.

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.

My coworkers wanted to vote on what food to order, and I was like, I'm not a slave, damn you! They totally got my point.

You need another’s vote to decide what food to order? No wonder.

It’s a stupid analogy because in that case you’re not operating under the illusion that you’re participating in government, that a government job-holder can represent you and your interests while deciding the conditions of your life, and that you have some sort of say in power. The whole process is at best performative piffle for thralls, at worst, the signing over of yourself as property.

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.

The wilderness awaits you, Buck. Flee.

Could the analogy be to a prohibition era bootlegger who goes around touting the benefits of alcohol, says a certain number of alcohol-related deaths are "worth it" so we can freely drink, and then gets nailed by a drunk driver? — RogueAI

That would be an analogy of the irony of a gun guy getting shot, sure.

So you are arguing or asking if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified?
Youre a mod?
Thats pretty fucked up. — DingoJones

It is, yep.

Charlie Kirk didn't deserve what happened to him in the sense that all he did made him worthy of punishment: But... — Moliere

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.

I would say the irony is more that the right to bear arms only secures liberty if those bearing arms are (at least somewhat) virtuous and capable of self-governance (collectively and individually). Even if one grants it great importance, it still seems that it will be, at best, a right oriented towards a secondary good.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, and can you force people to behave? Without violent indoctrination? Without capital punishment and constant fear of death? No, you cannot. — Outlander

A depressing--and not at all realistic--response.

A "conscientious cooperative civil society" isn't forced -- it is reared from childhood. You have to teach children -- who become adults -- how to behave.

Does this result in perfect compliance with the law under any and all circumstances? Does this absolutely prevent violence under any and all circumstances? No. What it does is result in a LOW level of unlawful and violent behavior.

Do such societies exist? Certainly they do. Most of us live within such societies.

Many of us also live within societies which are fraying, owing to excesses of free enterprise in such businesses as gun manufacture, gambling, illicit drug use, and the like.

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.

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. — Moliere

Conflict here being: I admire John Brown, Eugene Debs, and various others who are heroes to my mind: I thought of these two because one did it with the bullet and the other did it with the ballot.

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. — Moliere

The OP would not be at all provocative if it were presented this abstractly, simply asking the question of when violence is permitted and when it is not. The OP, however, presented the question of whether the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified under the logic employed during the Civil Rights Movement, suggesting that the plight of today’s left is much like the plight of African Americans in the 1960s, and so now is the time to take up arms.

One must wonder if anyone so repulsed by Charlie Kirk actually watched his videos. He was a Christian conservative to be sure, but not a firebrand. His shtick was to debate college students who would approach the mic.

One must also wonder if anyone who finds consistency between Kirk’s assassin and Malcolm X has actually read Malcolm X.

The comment, for example, by Malcolm X: “If they don’t want you and me to get violent, then stop the racists from being violent. Don’t teach us nonviolence while those crackers are violent. Those days are over” is an appeal to self-defense, alluding to instances where MLK’s strategy of nonviolence is suicidal. It is, of course, philosophically reasonable to want to parse out those moments when the violence against someone is great enough to justify lashing out with additional violence, but not by citing an instance that is nowhere near a close call.

If you actually think it’s a hard one to noodle through whether someone who holds political views on abortion, homosexuality, transsexualism, guns, and the climate should be executed by a rifle in a public arena at the will of any random citizen, then this is not a conversation about pacifism versus violence generally. It is a conversation with someone who doesn’t know basic right from wrong.

The OP would not be at all provocative if it were presented this abstractly, simply asking the question of when violence is permitted and when it is not. The OP, however, presented the question of whether the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified under the logic employed during the Civil Rights Movement, suggesting that the plight of today’s left is much like the plight of African Americans in the 1960s, and so now is the time to take up arms. — Hanover

Yes.

What else is there?

The comment, for example, by Malcolm X: “If they don’t want you and me to get violent, then stop the racists from being violent. Don’t teach us nonviolence while those crackers are violent. Those days are over” is an appeal to self-defense, alluding to instances where MLK’s strategy of nonviolence is suicidal. It is, of course, philosophically reasonable to want to parse out those moments when the violence against someone is great enough to justify lashing out with additional violence, but not by citing an instance that is nowhere near a close call.

If you actually think it’s a hard one to noodle through whether someone who holds political views on abortion, homosexuality, transsexualism, guns, and the climate should be executed by a rifle in a public arena at the will of any random citizen, then this is not a conversation about pacifism versus violence generally. It is a conversation with someone who doesn’t know basic right from wrong. — Hanover

I said it's murder.

I'm suggesting that this isn't the only murder we're responsible for -- so pacifism becomes an absurd dream.

Yes, I don't know basic right from wrong -- how could we in this world? Who does?

The question between pacifism and violence is easy to answer at its ideals: Pacifists don't do that on principle.

They, more often than not, suffer for these beliefs and move on with their lives when they can -- but also get eaten up by the harsher people amongst us, and forgotten.

Mr Kirk held views -- he held views that are against the gays, for instance, and expressing them kind of views has effects.

He's not a peaceful individual sitting at a college campus just having a conversation -- he's a professional propagandist spreading hate for the FREAKS.

Insofar that anyone is against THE FREAKS then it's really just an existential question for me: Do I want to live or not?

In spite of everything I do.

Mourning the haters of FREAKS wanting a Christian nation is hard to do. I'm willing to go so far as saying killing is evil.

But that's kind of the thing: We are killers, like it or not. We have more kills on our hands than the 1 guy shot yesterday.

So do we apply that same ire and disappointment to ourselves?

Unfortunately, this isn't even registered -- it's not good, bad, indifferent -- it's something so far beyond the subject that it's meaningless fluff.

If you actually think it’s a hard one to noodle through whether someone who holds political views on abortion, homosexuality, transsexualism, guns, and the climate should be executed by a rifle in a public arena at the will of any random citizen, then this is not a conversation about pacifism versus violence generally. — Hanover

Though the way you put it here -- sure.

I'm hoping that I've made my point clear enough that I'm not advocating for "any public speaker with such and such a view is good to be shot by any random citizen because of their views"

I'd much rather not live in a world like that.

I have a hard time caring, however, in the face of our genocide.

Whether it's the left or not for people dealing with the war against Gaza it seems to me that the bullet is justified. No politician wants to step up to stop supplying arms, and many people against what's happening in Gaza are "right wing", but not fascist.

But the story of the day is this -- so... if you care about Gaza, the ballot or the bullet?

I, myself, would like our states to represent us, but they don't.

No taxation without....

The comment, for example, by Malcolm X: “If they don’t want you and me to get violent, then stop the racists from being violent. Don’t teach us nonviolence while those crackers are violent. Those days are over” is an appeal to self-defense, alluding to instances where MLK’s strategy of nonviolence is suicidal. It is, of course, philosophically reasonable to want to parse out those moments when the violence against someone is great enough to justify lashing out with additional violence, but not by citing an instance that is nowhere near a close call. — Hanover

I agree it's not a close call. It's the first person I thought of in the moment that has a coherent philosophy of political violence.

Do you wonder if I've read him, for reals?

I have, but I'm not going to claim expertise. I have admiration for his moral convictions that he followed through on, and even revised.

The Malcolm X speech reminds me of the Introduction to John Keegan's A History of Warfare where Keegan criticizes the Clausewitz idea that war is politics by other means. Keegan strives to understand war-making as a culture of different people and not as a natural extension of pursuing political goals. War often interrupts politics.

A ready example of this is when John Brown tried to start a war at Harper's Ferry. It was not as simple a beginning that he had hoped for, but it was a start he hoped to bring about.

The case of Booth shooting Lincoln was in hopes of keeping a war alive. The original plot was to kill all of the leaders of Lincoln's administration.

The civil rights era had intimations of war but also an appeal to avoid it. Otherwise, it would have all been straight up Lenin and vanguard of the proletariat.

The Hatch decision titrated the Second Amendment into an individual right. That is different from the original idea of avoiding standing armies. Or even armies that rake.

All the political shootings of late, whoever they target from the menu of partisan targets, are more like personal messages than a call to arms. The Kirk killing is yet another school shooting. Is that a "cultural war?" Is it not a "cultural war?" Keegan readers would like to know.

I'm sure you're most likely right, Hanover. This is an odd event for me to process is all, when upset or bewildered, I enjoy engaging in debate with people I respect. As an "amateur" web programmer, my mind is basically solidified at this point to automatically seeing the "unlikely" options, as far as it relates to possibility (and therefore, relevant issues as they relate to security within a given system or framework). Old habits die hard, I guess.

Hopefully I did not upset you with any perceived vapidness of insinuation. I appreciate the reply.