The question comes up from time to time and I want an answer from the crazies that occupy OT. Should a state or agents of states be allowed to kill in the name of said state? (This of course is a question under the assumption that no act of war has been declared by said state on persons it is trying to kill).
Should we kill
- Thread starter Colonel
- Start date
Xanikk999
History junkie
Umm no. I dont even beileve in the death penalty.
I think a state has the right to kill in self-defense of its citizens, though it's a really scary line to tread. Personally, I think that it's better to err on the side of caution and try to only kill when absolutely necessary. But a case can be made that the state has the right.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
It's been going for a long time, why not continue.
Yes, the state has the right to kill. Within boundaries, of course.
If the country starts killing it's own citizens without consulting the public (the death penalty is chosen by citizens and administered by the state) then it has stepped over the line.
If the country starts killing it's own citizens without consulting the public (the death penalty is chosen by citizens and administered by the state) then it has stepped over the line.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Well that's been going on for hundreds of years. Whether the state has a right is unimportant.
Yeah, it happens. To some degree, it has to happen, but not on the scale it does.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Of course! Some freak comes around shooting people the cops should kill the mofo.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Nope. As a political entity, I thnk the state should only be able to kill in self-defense. Incarcerate all you like, but leave death to the guy in the dark robes...
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
No one should be killed unless you're about to be killed by them.
Well, Stalin killed in the name of the state.
Mao did too, so did Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim jong Il and god knows who else. Anyway my point is that the power of the state to kill can be too easily and too often abused, so no the state should not have the right to kill (not even in the case of the death penalty, that should be abolished.)
Mao did too, so did Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim jong Il and god knows who else. Anyway my point is that the power of the state to kill can be too easily and too often abused, so no the state should not have the right to kill (not even in the case of the death penalty, that should be abolished.)
Well, Stalin and Hitler collected taxes as well. That isn;t quite enough of an argument.
No, unless national security is at stake or a time of war. For example I have no problem with sending strike teams into gang areas, or against terrorists to maintain the peace. Of course there's also counter-inteligence stuff which might require lethal force...
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Stalin and Hitler killed innocent people who did no harm to anybody 'in the name of the state'. Murder is murder - hiding it under the guise of 'for the good of the People' does not change that. I agree with taillesskangaru: if this bordering entity has not done, is not doing, and will unlikely do anything to cause harm to the state or its citizens, there is no justification to kill.Eran of Arcadia said:
What if they're about to kill other people?
RubricousMidget
Warlord
Then you subdue them.
As so as a nation kills a human being deliberately, in my mind it ceases being a legitimate entity, and becomes a rogue state that ought to be kicked out of the international society. There is always a non-lethal way of dealing with people, if you have money - TASERs spring to mind, or the ever-popular tranquilizer dart - and if you have the resources to afford such an option, ignoring it in favour of lethal force is murder.
As so as a nation kills a human being deliberately, in my mind it ceases being a legitimate entity, and becomes a rogue state that ought to be kicked out of the international society. There is always a non-lethal way of dealing with people, if you have money - TASERs spring to mind, or the ever-popular tranquilizer dart - and if you have the resources to afford such an option, ignoring it in favour of lethal force is murder.
I don't think a state should be allowed to kill in defense of the state, only in defense of its citizens. I know it's a tough distinction, but it's necessary. A state can kill other states (without killing people), I guess, in self-defense - but that's a strange line to define, since this thread is talking about killing people.
As well, I think that Capital Punishment could be a form of legitimate self-defense, *if* it had a deterrent effect on capital crimes. I don't think it does, and so I do not support it. However, if it did have a statistically significant deterrent effect, then it would be legitimate. I think so, anyway.
All the above assumes that the state is a democracy. If it's a tyranny, then the tyrant is deliberately setting up a "might makes right" scenario, and thus is complicit in whatever ill befalls him.
Well, international society will, at that rate, pretty quickly end up consisting only of Lichtenstein . . .
Similar threads
