> Theoretically and philosophically speaking, why shouldn't we?
Because what you are describing is literally anarchy. It’s antithetical to our foundational principles as a society.
> I bet not many Americans would object to taking out terrorists, especially some who have caused a lot of damage like 9/11.
Opposition to the war on terror is not a fringe position in the United States.
> What about Timothy McVeigh? The U.S. assassinated him basically (how is lethal injection different than assassination? I think it's basically the same).
Well you’re wrong. Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted. That’s literally the difference between assasination and the death penalty. Opposition to the death penalty is also not a fringe position and many states no longer practice capital punishment.
> And what about this? Imagine a world where the especially blood-sucking CEOs have a 1/10 chance of being assassinated.
How do you identify the 1/10?
> Don't you think that the regular expectation of this might make them a little less blood-sucking?
I don’t know what the effect would be, why are you so confident you do?
> I wonder why it's morally acceptable for a country to send an army to assassinate some guy causing trouble or for the police to kill a terrorist holding hostages, but when another rich guy takes charge of a machine killing many more people than the average terrorist, assassinating them is taboo?
Do you really wonder? Do you really, honestly not know the difference? I find that very hard to believe.
> It’s antithetical to our foundational principles as a society.
I'm not sure it actually is. The foundational principle of society is basically the social contract "Individuals give up the right to exert violence in exchange for society providing safety and benefit."
If society fails to uphold its end of the bargain, then it seems logical that the individual is no longer obligated to hold up their end.
You don’t get to kill people when you don’t get your way. I can’t believe I even have to explain that. If assassination is acceptable behavior society is doomed. And the people carrying out those murders aren’t going to build anything better than we have now.
Yes, the healthcare system has flaws. But those flaws are fixable. In living memory we have seen dramatic improvements in the healthcare industry. Murder isn’t the solution here.
Come now, lets not resort to strawman arguments. The injustice and inequality in our current system is clearly dramatically more than "you don't get your way".
>Because what you are describing is literally anarchy. It’s antithetical to our foundational principles as a society.
If the society has failed, people will use violence to build a replacement. This is the system. Its always been the system. What you are saying here, is that stability is more important than fixing a system that is killing people.
>Opposition to the war on terror is not a fringe position in the United States.
And non violent opposition didnt really end it in any reasonable time frame.
>How do you identify the 1/10?
The bullets and blood will be a pretty good indicator.
>Do you really wonder? Do you really, honestly not know the difference? I find that very hard to believe.
The difference is that foreign murder doesn't challenge the stability and comfort that the state provides you, where as local murder might spread to you, and you might need to change your behavior to avoid it. Its just plain old discomfort and hypocrisy. To paraphrase a common internet saying, the f*king around is fine, you simply dont want to find out.
> If the society has failed, people will use violence to build a replacement. This is the system. Its always been the system. What you are saying here, is that stability is more important than fixing a system that is killing people.
Is it fixing the system or replacing it? You can’t have it both ways.
> Because what you are describing is literally anarchy. It’s antithetical to our foundational principles as a society.
A little anarchy now and then may not be a bad thing if it upsets the exisitng power structure. And the founding principles do not imply that the current society is what the founding principles were meant to imply.
> I don’t know what the effect would be, why are you so confident you do?
I am not completely confident but it's a reasonable assumption.
> Do you really wonder? Do you really, honestly not know the difference? I find that very hard to believe.
Of course there is a difference, because they are different situations. But I don't think there is a moral difference.
Because what you are describing is literally anarchy. It’s antithetical to our foundational principles as a society.
> I bet not many Americans would object to taking out terrorists, especially some who have caused a lot of damage like 9/11.
Opposition to the war on terror is not a fringe position in the United States.
> What about Timothy McVeigh? The U.S. assassinated him basically (how is lethal injection different than assassination? I think it's basically the same).
Well you’re wrong. Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted. That’s literally the difference between assasination and the death penalty. Opposition to the death penalty is also not a fringe position and many states no longer practice capital punishment.
> And what about this? Imagine a world where the especially blood-sucking CEOs have a 1/10 chance of being assassinated.
How do you identify the 1/10?
> Don't you think that the regular expectation of this might make them a little less blood-sucking?
I don’t know what the effect would be, why are you so confident you do?
> I wonder why it's morally acceptable for a country to send an army to assassinate some guy causing trouble or for the police to kill a terrorist holding hostages, but when another rich guy takes charge of a machine killing many more people than the average terrorist, assassinating them is taboo?
Do you really wonder? Do you really, honestly not know the difference? I find that very hard to believe.