Would it not depend on the issue? If it's about bike lanes, then never. What do you have in mind?

I was thinking about this, and this is what I came up with:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Lmaoooo let's get bike roads already!

With the recent even of Luigi's murder charge it makes me wonder why he didn't try the other umpteen steps to change things. Was it not a swift enough move? Was there even hope for change if he took those steps?

Sort of just blanket applied across the board, if the systems in place to create change aren't working, do we the people take matters into our own hands and hope it sends the right message? If so, at what point and to what extent?

I don't remember "the people" delegating murdering company execs to Luigi, do you?

So you're saying the crime needs to be organized to make it moral?

Where did I say that? I was just reacting to you using the example of a lone vigilante murdering an insurance exec as "the people" taking matters into their own hands.

But yes, for "the people" to do something, it requires some kind of organization and at least an implicit consent on their part. That's just a straightforward implication of what the words mean.

With the recent even of Luigi's murder charge it makes me wonder why he didn't try the other umpteen steps to change things. Was it not a swift enough move? Was there even hope for change if he took those steps? — GTTRPNK

Do we know what steps Luigi took and what, if anything, happened?

I think there's a view amongst many people that the corporate fat cats are fucking over the world and letting people die, whilst they are lawyered up and protected from responsibility and consequences. Killing a problematic CEO may seem an irresistible way to send a message.

Taking all the feasible steps up the chain of command might well be an exercise in futility. Or not. It depends. Revolutionaries might rather just shoot the chain of command rather than wasting time talking to it.

I understand the appeal of radical action, but many unlikeable institutions (like a despotic governments or corrupt health insurance companies) are generally quite capable of taking care of themselves and arranging for their long-term survival. Revolutionaries will more likely than not be the ones who are shot or locked up in a dungeon.

To successfully destroy United Health Care, Luigi would have needed excellent planning and coordination skills, great leadership talent, and many comrades. Infiltrating the company with subversives would have helped. But decapitating a large company wouldn't be enough. One would have to decapitate the protecting government as well, and be done in such a way that it would leave the rest of the government establishment stunned and inoperative.

It worked fairly well for the Bolsheviks to shoot the Romanov's, thereby decapitating the heart of the Russian government. Decapitating the US government would be much more difficult for even very competent and highly motivated revolutionaries to pull off.

Protest may not be enough, but it might be all that is possible.

Maybe Proportionate Reaction could be argued, if the concept's meaning and intended outcomes could be agreed upon?



encouraging smile

at what point, if at all, do you find it morally acceptable to take physical action against government/authority and what does that look like?

That's "easy". When there is more overall benefit (to society, in my way of thinking), than there is harm to society. One could, of course, concoct an implausible example to make the point (folks commonly invoke Nazi Germany), but to my estimation realistic examples of justified "physical action", in the Modern West would be exceedingly uncommon.

When we know who is the boss, I think it's clearly a mistake to do so. A major mistake.