From: IN%"ravage@ssz.com" "Jim Choate" 7-FEB-1996 01:02:52.78

...

If someone has comitted serious enough violations of rights in the past, then I would call killing that person justified. First, it prevents any

Who defines what the rights are? How are the standards to be applied? Self-defence by the person being killed is not ruled out. -------------- Ultimately, as any other system decides whether rights have been violated. Individual determination, no matter how much the cops and courts may claim they're just following the law, is in the end the deciding factor in how they behave. In other words, each person must decide what rights exist. If that person sees another violating those rights, then they ethically must try to do something about the rights-violator - to stop them at the bare minimum. Solutions which also serve the functions of justice (retribution) and discouragement are optimal. -------------

It also prevents any understanding of what caused that individual to act the way they did. It also prevents any chance of repentance or growth. It also leaves any question of a mistake moot. I personaly don't want to live in a society where by any stretch of the imagination some group of strangers decide if I live or die. This is ultimately the basic human right. If you seriously support this then it is unreasonable for you to support freedom of speech and the elimination of federal intrusions into it. Killing a person is a very effective method to silence speech. If it is a right then no amount of people are sufficient to take it from you. I don't want my great-great-great-grandchildren to live in that kind of world either.

The mistake one is a problem. There are some cases, though, in which the evidence tends to be pretty clear... and those tend to be the ones in which the person thinks they're justified, or claims as much. These tend to be the governmental cases. Regarding restrictions of rights, if someone violates the rights of another, it is right to take away (permanently or temporarily) some of their rights. First, it is necessary in order to prevent further violations - a variety of self-defense. Second, it is just retribution. Third, the manner of such punishment may be chosen to serve as a discouragement; while it would not be right to chose to punish someone on this basis alone, one may consider it when deciding on details. If you don't agree with the above, how do you justify violating someone's rights in self-defense? Shooting them for trying to kill you definitely prevents their speech, for instance. The concept in question is just a temporally altered version. ------------

...

people in question- government agents, etcetera- are generally a bit different than the gang members who so regularly ignore prison sentences and the death penalty.)

I disagree strongly with this. Historicaly those gang members have risen to become the government. It occurs often enough to clearly indicate that groups in concert tend to behave the same way toward outsiders. It is a function of human psychology. ----------- You're vastly oversimplifying the motivations of the people in government. They can be divided into two basic groups; the ones who believe in a cause, and the ones who just want power. The first can only be stopped by death when their cause is wrong, although if the cause itself is not wrong but their method of gaining it is, they should be discouragable from using certain methods. The second are quite discouragable - they don't have much power when they're dead. ----------

...

Third, and getting away from the self-defense argument, it is justice.

Whose justice? The victims? Does it bring them justice or just ease your feelings of threat? Would you feel justified? I would feel guilty being involved in any manner with the death of another human being. For me, life is the ultimate treasure (hoaky as that may be), no body irrispective of quantity is wise enough to decide that question in any situation. ------------- Justice in the sense of balancing the scales. If one person has taken away from the rights of another, it is balanced to take away that first person's rights to compensate. They caused another to lose freedom; now they will have their freedom limited. -------------

...

...

How many people have to decide that another should be killed for it to be ethical? In short, how many people does it take to decide it is a legitimate act to take your own life?

---

Why should "how many people" make a difference?

A democracy consists of groups acting in concert in various sizes toward a quasi-shared mental model. The majority rule is a basic tenent of government theory. The current system says 12 people are sufficient to decide a persons life. Is 12 strangers sufficient to decide your life? I don't think they are sufficient to decide mine. ---------- I don't really care whether majority rule is a basic tenent of government theory (it isn't, aside from studies of democracies). It's all up to each individual anyway. Democracy is bullshit (fuck Exon and the CDA). Since you left me with a "thought question" that I've tried to answer, I'll leave you with one. Were the assasination attempts on Hitler justified? -Allen