Your point?
Presidents are in charge of ‘goons’ therefore ‘goons’ are their agents, therefore the president is implicated for the ‘goons’ work for him and he is directly responsible for them when they are carrying out dictates of the state apparatus.
So what? If I tell my friend to go kill someone, I am guilty if he does? And don’t tell me no, because he is not my employee. I don’t see how hiring someone and then telling them to kill someone else is relevant.
And then on the other hand if my friend tells me he is going to kill someone and that he wants my gun, and I give it to him, I am not?
I find it fascinating that you believe I could possibly know both your thoughts, that is, know if you’re lying or being temporarily hotheaded or really serious. I have done nothing but hand you a gun. There is no aggression in that act. You and you alone will pull the trigger, if you end up pulling the trigger. You and you alone are responsible for pulling that trigger. Possessing a gun is not aggression. Loading a gun is not aggression. Aiming a gun is not necessarily aggression. Pulling the trigger of a loaded gun while aiming it at another is aggression (assuming no self-defence and all the usual exceptions).
yes but if Person A tells Person B that they are going to murder somebody, and B voluntarily gives them a gun to do the job, then that’s an Accessory to a crime. if Person A tells Person B he/she is going to murder somebody and under coercion A makes B give A, B’s gun, then that’s not Accessory. B could have fought back in self-defense against A, but an innocent under coercion, thus forced to give up something, B is the victim of stolen property and is innocent.
It depends what you mean by “tell”. If you were serious, you asked, he did it, it is as much your fault as the killer. If your friend listens to you, either you used force or you actually wanted the person to die. If you were kidding and your friend killed a person, shouldn’t you have known he didn’t know better? (i.e. was he high, does he have a mental disability). There’s not enough context to discuss anything further than that.
Are you really suggesting that if you’re not the person committing the physical act you want to have done, that you’re NEVER at fault?
No. I know it can get confusing reading the posts.
I think if someone tells you that he or she is going to kill someone and that he or she needs a gun, and you sell him or her that gun, that you are partially culpable for the killing. Some people here are saying you are not and that somehow it is different for a supposed leader. They say that when you change the title from “seller” to “leader”, that magically you all of a sudden you do become partially culpable, whereas when you are a “seller” you are not culpable.
To be clear, I say, if someone buys a gun from you, and the person tells you he or she is going to kill someone, that you are partially culpable for the murder. I also think a leader is partially culpable for issuing an order to kill other people, if other people get killed because of the order. In both cases, the seller and the leader could have made a difference. The seller of the gun could have said no to the sale and the leader could have not ordered the death of other people.
I find it fascinating that you do not know when someone is being serious or not. You can usually ask follow up questions, like, “are you being serious”?
Making an educated guess, or being fairly sure, I can do that. To actually know is impossible. Further, my culpability is based solely on your actions. If you change your mind before pulling the trigger, I’ve suddenly done nothing wrong… I don’t agree that my actions can be aggression if you act one way and not aggression if you act another way.
This is a bit of a digression though. Your earlier question was about taxpayers and government. So to make this analogous, you have to hold a knife to my throat and demand a gun, or money to purchase a gun. Then you can go off and kill someone with the gun like a good government. In that scenario, i certainly would have no culpability.
I will grant you that.
Just like the culpability of a leader is based solely on the actions of the other government employees.
If a soldier changes his mind, then suddenly the leader is no longer culpable.
Then you should agree that leaders have no culpability, using your reasoning.
Yes, this has digressed from an earlier analogy. Originally I said I think that killing someone if someone holds a gun to your head and orders it is wrong. To be consistent, I have to concede that paying taxes that go towards paying people to kill other people is wrong as well. If a thief approaches me, and says give me all your money to help me buy a bomb to blow up a building full of people or I will kill you, if I give him money so he can buy stuff to blow up a building, and he does it, then I would say I am partially culpable for that crime.