Legal "assassinations": Crazy enough to work?

Author: Savant
Assassination
politicians

Posts

Total: 78
Topic's author
#61
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,791
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
49 Japanese patriots who have United States citizenship.
How would the Japanese patriots benefit from this? How would they know who the Manchurian candidate is yet no one else does?

the Manchurian candidates when in power can just release them
Well, someone could go to jail to remove the Manchurian candidate from office.
#62
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,419
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
How would the Japanese patriots benefit from this? How would they know who the Manchurian candidate is yet no one else does?
The citizens wouldn't need to know they would just need to be in constant communication with those in the Japanese embassy

Well, someone could go to jail to remove the Manchurian candidate from office.
This assumes two things

1. Whites are just as willing to be kamikazes as the Japanese, I think WW2 is a hint as to how true that is

2. That this isn't well timed and no immediate takeover that can subvert the rule of law occurs. Once they have complete power then it's over. Maybe you could offset this with lifetime judge appointments that can overrule decisions but then you are back to a bunch of the swamp just taking olup for each other and nobody ever gets removed. 
#63
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,775
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Savant
and what? Threaten to put somebody in jail for life? :)
Put them in jail but keep the politician in office, yeah. That ruins the blackmail.
Not in general. A party/community will use code words to indicate that they're threatening.

It happens right now and it would happen even more when there is a 100% chance of success.


So suppose a certain group calls themselves zeta.

They have about a hundred thousand members spread relatively evenly throughout the country. They can't win any elections, but they have a very high 'radicalization' quotient, that is most of them are convinced that they are being brutally oppressed and 10% of them are willing to go to prison to change things. If assassination would change things instead of turning the public against them, they would certainly assassinate.

If you think such a group is unrealistic, I beg to differ, I think there are 20 such groups right now.


That's 10,000 vetos in their arsenal, and they have no way to win elections.

They don't need to convince the public or a party or even the candidate lineup. All they need to do is convince the current leader that someone in their group will take them out.

So they will use weasel words, dog whistles, and coded language.

"If you don't, people will not stand for it" (wink wink nudge nudge)
"This is intolerable, it's worse than life in prison" (wink wink nudge nudge)

You can't throw anybody who uses such language in prison, and even if you did; that means they can use that power to protect a candidate. Want someone to be immune from "assassination"? Just threaten to "assassinate" them.


You think you can lineup 10,000 candidates and not one would give in? That is absurd. The only reason they might not give in would be because they know if they did, somebody else would "assassinate" them because you can't make everybody happy (so long as somebody is irrational).

Then it's not a game between the candidate and the public, it's a game between the groups that hate each other's policies, a game of sacrifice, and we know what that game looks like: it's called war.

Politics is war by other means and this is form of war that gives the advantage to those most convinced that they're right, not the unselfish.
#64
ultramaximus2
ultramaximus2's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 31
0
0
2
ultramaximus2's avatar
ultramaximus2
0
0
2
It would be necessary to have another election after that. Too much time and money spent on elections. Also old people who are gonna die in a few months anyway (eg terminal cancer) can just push the button without much cost to their life experience whereas young people would have to pay a much higher price (eg 40 years+)

#65
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,579
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Savant
They say homicide is intent plus opportunity.

I’m going to guess there are a couple thousand people in the entirety of the US who would assassinate a politician when given a golden opportunity. The thing is, they never get the chance, often due to their own insanity that (thankfully) causes them to get in their own way, but also due to the intense security every politician has protecting them. Yes the occasional close call happens, but usually they are shut down before the would-be assassin can actually harm anyone. Knowing this, a lot of the wackos that are thinking of assassinating a politician tend not to even try. So the mere presence of security an active defense of its own.

But the idea you have proposed circumvents that. All some wacko needs to do is file a paper on whatever day they feel motivated enough to do so. The opportunity is right there for the taking, plus the punishment is less harsh, removing a key disincentive.

I can imagine some desperate bum deciding to blame all their problems on the system and just filing a paper. Not only could they remove a (relatively) decent politician from office, but they could do so while getting to enjoy free meals and healthcare from the state.

Situations like those are why this is not a good idea.

Instead, we need to get voters to actually put voting pressure on politicians to adopt some new policies. I’ll give a couple good ideas to start:

-Rid the election system of ballot limitations that perpetuate the two-party system
-No more stock trading for the immediate families of national and state level politicians.
#66
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,775
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Mharman
The thing is, they never get the chance, often due to their own insanity that (thankfully) causes them to get in their own way, but also due to the intense security every politician has protecting them.
I think the first is the bigger factor.

More specifically: I think that the defenses politicians have are woefully insufficient to stop a well planned attempt, BUT that the kind of person who can focus long enough to plan well is also the kind that can foresee the consequences... namely that assassinations have almost never killed a movement or even organized crime.
#67
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Savant
Interesting thought experiment, but no:

- It is unconstitutional, as it deprives a person of their right to self determination without due process.
- It is undemocratic, as it deprives the electorate of their duly elected official.
- It is immoral, as it does all of the above at the whim of a single person of questionable sanity.
- It is ineffective, as it assumes that government office is the only lever of power and influence a person might have.
- It is impractical, as the legal appeals process would come out in full force to counteract and delay such a move.
Topic's author
#68
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,791
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@cristo71
It is unconstitutional, as it deprives a person of their right to self determination without due process.
Constitution can be changed.

It is undemocratic, as it deprives the electorate of their duly elected official.
The constitution, which you just defended, also overrides the will of the majority. You need checks on mob rule.

It is immoral, as it does all of the above at the whim of a single person of questionable sanity.
That's already true of presidential vetos. In this case at least the citizen has to put something on the line. Also not sure how that makes it "immoral" as opposed to "counterproductive" in your view. Plus, I'd rather hold politicians to a very stricter standard.

It is ineffective, as it assumes that government office is the only lever of power and influence a person might have.
It's a big lever but not the only one.

It is impractical, as the legal appeals process would come out in full force to counteract and delay such a move.
Not if the rules are written clearly.
#69
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Savant
I’m going to address this first point in isolation because it is a big one and to avoid it being lost in the rhetorical shuffle:

“It is unconstitutional, as it deprives a person of their right to self determination without due process.”

Constitution can be changed.
Yes, this can be changed, but why should it be changed? And what should it be changed to instead?

Topic's author
#70
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,791
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@cristo71
Yes, this can be changed, but why should it be changed? And what should it be changed to instead?
Changed to allow legal career assassinations on the condition that the assassin goes to jail for the rest of their life. A single amendment would do the trick. I think my reasons for why have already been explained.
#71
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Savant
You answered the “what?” but not the “why?” People like their liberty as protected in the Constitution. Why should a carve out around this protection be made?
Topic's author
#72
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,791
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@cristo71
Why should a carve out around this protection be made?
I think it incentivizes politicians not to form cults of personality.
#73
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Savant
I think it incentivizes politicians not to form cults of personality.
That’s a highly speculative reason to alter the highest law in the land. You are not worried about the cult of personality needed to support the person suggesting such an alteration to the Constitution ? Or assuming this scheme is codified, you are not concerned with the cult around a person sacrificing his own liberty to execute this provision?

This sounds like a self defeating solution in search of a problem. We already have a mechanism to eject a politician from office— elections.

Topic's author
#74
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,791
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@cristo71
You are not worried about the cult of personality needed to support the person suggesting such an alteration to the Constitution ? Or assuming this scheme is codified, you are not concerned with the cult around a person sacrificing his own liberty to execute this provision?
I think cults of personality are a bigger concern when the subject holds a political office. Sure, some people will have cuts of personality, but they won't hold office.

We already have a mechanism to eject a politician from office— elections.
Sure, but if a politician and their party seizes power in the middle of their term, the voters don't have much recourse. Usually it takes a significant cult of personality before a power grab like that can happen.
#75
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Savant
I think cults of personality are a bigger concern when the subject holds a political office. Sure, some people will have cuts of personality, but they won't hold office.
What if a leader who won election by a landslide— that you and everyone you know voted for, who is seen as doing good things for the country (or whatever jurisdiction as the case may be), and whose replacement is a hot mess— falls prey to this scheme because of some crazy yahoo?

Or, conversely, the person who goes to jail executing this scheme attains popularity and martyr status and gets elected to political office because of his sacrifice?

This would just cause more problems than it solves, and I don’t even see what the problem is that it purports to solve or how it would solve it.

Topic's author
#76
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,791
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@cristo71
What if a leader who won election by a landslide— that you and everyone you know voted for, who is seen as doing good things for the country, and whose replacement is a hot mess— falls prey to this scheme because of some crazy yahoo?
I think good leaders are more replaceable than bad leaders, because it's easy for a single politician to do a lot of damage. Way more common for a politician to do a uniquely bad gimmick than to come up with some brilliant plan that no one else could have come up with. If the guy who was elected in a landslide is following the leading economic theories, then why can't their replacement do the same?

Or, conversely, the person who goes to jail executing this scheme attains popularity and martyr status and gets elected to political office because of his sacrifice?
Well, part of the rules would be banning that person from office too.
#77
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Savant
I think good leaders are more replaceable than bad leaders, because it's easy for a single politician to do a lot of damage. Way more common for a politician to do a uniquely bad gimmick than to come up with some brilliant plan that no one else could have come up with. If the guy who was elected in a landslide is following the leading economic theories, then why can't their replacement do the same?
Because leadership matters, and good leadership is neither common nor to be taken for granted. But there are times, maybe, when people vote for the platform over the person— that could be a subject for a whole other thread.

Well, part of the rules would be banning that person from office too.
You really seem intent on thwarting the will of the electorate in what is supposed to be a democratic republic. To what end?
Topic's author
#78
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,791
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@cristo71
Because leadership matters, and good leadership is neither common nor to be taken for granted.
At the end of the day the leadership comes down to which policies are implemented. I guess you could have a president who gives a good speech, but presidents who represent the median voters will consistently do better than swinging between extremes. I'd rather have less passionate speeches and less crazy policies.

in what is supposed to be a democratic republic. To what end?
The point of the "republic" part is to prevent populist leaders from seizing too much power. Same logic as term limits. There need to be checks on elected leaders, the question is what checks.