Assassination Politics

[grarpamp]

Quote some unrelated talk from "Campus Reform" around the
"justified greater good", "means to an end" debate re NAP and AP...


"
"What's so great about assassinating a rando fascist? And in the
absence of a sound affirmative justification, it should be easy to
envision the drawbacks."

"The problem with violence is that it usually, though not always,
is a bad idea. That I agree with,"
Loomis said in another comment, "Yes, sometimes violence is necessary,
say to avoid greater physical harm, i.e. self-defense, or to defeat
a literal army of fascists who are trying to kill people. But,
ideologically, I think the idea that violence is good if it's against
our political enemies is a core part of fascism, and so the ideological
opposition to that idea should be its opposite - that violence as
a general rule is bad, unless the specific context of that situation
requires a violent response."
"

Which may beg questions among AP analysts, debaters,
proponents, detractors, etc...
What exactly is the current situation?
What is the level of harmless moral or otherwise voluntary
freedom you can have without ultimately being killed
for resisting State's coercion?
What may be the situation's future trend and result upon peoples?
What from history may help predict various future trend paths
should they be left unchecked via any substantially influential
and even independantly equalizing manner?
What may be the right path for a free... or more importantly,
to free... humanity... and how do you get there, assuredly,
in a lifetime relavant timeframe?
When everything else has already been tried and failed.