- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettThis is the slippery slope argument, first you allow this one thing, and that allows all these other things.
Once a policy of assassination is legitimized, I do not trust governments to restrict its application solely to foreign targets. It is an expansion of state power to a dangerous degree. Such policies are always introduced as a means for countering extreme and isolated circumstances, but once accepted they have a way of institutionalizing and expanding thems ...[text shortened]... whomever happens to disturb the interests of big business, whether it be foreign or domestic.
It's not true.
As I will demonstrate,
allowing Killing in self defence is dangerous because if you allow people to kill in self defence you legitimise
killing and people will start killing people simply because they owe them money.
We can't trust people to know when to stop.
You can't say that this thing shouldn't be allowed because people wont stop their and will move on to do
this other thing that is clearly 'over the line'. Because you can apply it to anything.
You assess each action as to what side it is on, and that is your guide, and protection.
Originally posted by rwingettYet armies are typically maintained on that exact assumption - that they will only be used on foreign targets. They are frequently used on citizens, yet countries have not got rid of their armies as a result.
Once a policy of assassination is legitimized, I do not trust governments to restrict its application solely to foreign targets.
Do you support disbanding the army for fear of it being used on citizens?
It is an expansion of state power to a dangerous degree. Such policies are always introduced as a means for countering extreme and isolated circumstances, but once accepted they have a way of institutionalizing and expanding themselves to the detriment of a much broader segment of society. Today you're assassinating someone like Bashar al-Assad and tomorrow you're assassinating whomever happens to disturb the interests of big business, whether it be foreign or domestic.
I am posing it as an alternative to war. If you can legitimize war, then there is no way assassination can be seen as an expansion. Assassination by any measure is less damaging than war.
And your slippery slope argument can be applied to war too.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe danger is that a policy of assassination, once legitimized, will inevitably see its application broadened to encompass more than just isolated "evil dictators". It would be applied to foreign leaders who happen to displease US business interests. People like Salvador Allende from the past, or Hugo Chavez today. It is an extremely dangerous expansion of state power that far exceeds its possible benefit.
That's moral relativism.
And I think it's hugely dangerous.
Because it IS possible to say with certainty that some moral systems are better than others,
and some actions are better than others.
I have no problem for example stating with absolute conviction that sharia law is objectively
morally bad, and should be opposed at every opportunity. ...[text shortened]... an easily think of situations where I can see the
benefits easily outweighing the costs.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettYou need to justify it 'inevitably' being applied more widely.
The danger is that a policy of assassination, once legitimized, will inevitably see its application broadened to encompass more than just isolated "evil dictators". It would be applied to foreign leaders who happen to displease US business interests. People like Salvador Allende from the past, or Hugo Chavez today. It is an extremely dangerous expansion of state power that far exceeds its possible benefit.
Again I will not buy a slippery slope argument.
You need a causal link to justify your assertion the B necessarily follows from A.
Without it you are just asserting stuff with no basis.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCountries should get rid of their armies. The US founding fathers were correct in observing that standing armies are a grave threat to liberty. The degree to which the US is now in danger of becoming a police state bears them out.
Yet armies are typically maintained on that exact assumption - that they will only be used on foreign targets. They are frequently used on citizens, yet countries have not got rid of their armies as a result.
Do you support disbanding the army for fear of it being used on citizens?
It is an expansion of state power to a dangerous degree. Such polic easure is less damaging than war.
And your slippery slope argument can be applied to war too.
Your policy of assassination will not prevent wars. It will just inflame worldwide hostility toward the US and run the risk of inciting more violence. A policy of violence never leads to less violence. It only leads to more violence.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't need to justify anything. Why don't you demonstrate to me why a policy of assassination wouldn't lead to it being expanded to dangerous proportions?
You need to justify it 'inevitably' being applied more widely.
Again I will not buy a slippery slope argument.
You need a causal link to justify your assertion the B necessarily follows from A.
Without it you are just asserting stuff with no basis.
Originally posted by rwingettDoes it? The US is in danger of become a police state because of its standing army? Thats news to me. Can you give more detail?
Countries should get rid of their armies. The US founding fathers were correct in observing that standing armies are a grave threat to liberty. The degree to which the US is now in danger of becoming a police state bears them out.
Your policy of assassination will not prevent wars. It will just inflame worldwide hostility toward the US and run the risk of inciting more violence.
I did say originally that it is wrongly considered politically incorrect. For some reason people would rather you come and shoot them with tanks than kill their leader. People are stupid that way.
A policy of violence never leads to less violence. It only leads to more violence.
Not if the policy of violence is a policy of less violence than previous violence.
You are claiming that giving US police batons instead of guns will lead to more bloodshed because batons are violent weapons. Not true.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe permanent establishment of the US military-industrial complex has had grave repercussions on the liberty of people everywhere. What other country deified its military more than the US currently does? Lets see...ah, yes, it was Nazi Germany. The way we "support the troops" in everything these days is just one goose-step shy of a Nuremberg rally. Add an endless series of "Patriot Act" style legislation to your proposed assassination policy and what do you have? A police state.
Does it? The US is in danger of become a police state because of its standing army? Thats news to me. Can you give more detail?
[b]Your policy of assassination will not prevent wars. It will just inflame worldwide hostility toward the US and run the risk of inciting more violence.
I did say originally that it is wrongly considered politically inco ...[text shortened]... batons instead of guns will lead to more bloodshed because batons are violent weapons. Not true.[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettI think you are confusing a 'police state' with a 'military state' 🙂
The permanent establishment of the US military-industrial complex has had grave repercussions on the liberty of people everywhere. What other country deified its military more than the US currently does? Lets see...ah, yes, it was Nazi Germany. The way we "support the troops" in everything these days is just one goose-step shy of a Nuremberg rally. Add an e ...[text shortened]... tyle legislation to your proposed assassination policy and what do you have? A police state.
