Kids will just turn up their IPods and render those neurotic baby-boomer tax dollars and city counsel meetings irrelevant. Self-interest wins in decibels these days. Politically, socially, etc.
I also have been struck with the same idea many many times, and I think it appeals to anyone with an intrinsic sense of compassion for the oppressed. Unfortunately, people with an intrinsic sense of the ethical are less likely to perform such an ethically questionable action, which is why you rarely see the assassinations of "evil" people by "good" people. Conversely, the entire throng of martyrs political, social, and religious bear witness to the opposite effect - namely, sociopaths asserting themselves (directly and indirectly) at the expense of others well-being.
While this may seem a bit extreme given the matter in hand (basically the RIAA becoming the FDA of technology), its the matter of exploitation in principle that I'm addressing. We could switch the RIAA with Exxon/Mobil (and their shennigans in Venezuela), and we could have a case where moronic corrupt exploitation has caused death.
Lord only knows how many indirect assassinations have taken place in the last 100 years under the guise of what is "legal". "Legal" exploitation of economies (and therefore of individuals) has assassinated more people than all the sniper rifles in the world ever will. On the other hand, can sniper rifles aimed at the correct targets help to nip exploitation in the bud before famine, disease, starvation, and ecological disaster hit home?;-)
Though its sort of off the topic, I can't help but want to quote Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Anyways, in WWII, an ethicist/pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, became involved with some higher ups of Hitler's staff in a plot to kill Hitler. While his motives and reasons for acting in this plot are very complex, I'll simply present a list of questions that apply to the situation at hand.
1) If you wish a freezing and starving neighbor to be warm and well-fed, but do nothing to alleviate his suffering when, in actuality, you had the means, you are guilty of oppression. By extension, if your neighbor's life is in danger (through economic turmoil imposed by the all-pervasive and holy market), but you do nothing to protect him and he dies, you are guilty of murder. On the other hand, if you kill his oppressor, you are guilty of murder. (Life is replete with catch-22 situations like this)
2)Are there alternatives to the catch-22 situation that may be concidered? How long is it necessary to wait for these alternatives if they haven't panned out to halt the corruption and exploitation. Is it ethically justifiable to keep waiting when a more direct solution (assassinations of key exploiters) is available that could save lives? For instance, how long must we wait for the precious market(which you slashdot people are strangely enamoured with) to fix the situation? If the exploitation of the market, and the media brainwashings of consumers who feed that market, is the instrument of oppression - is it ethically justifiable to kill those few elites having sway over the market and media in order to free up our alternative? Would such action just give wave to another set of key exploiters and oppressors?
3) Is it even the role of the individual in a representative democracy to take such power upon themselves, or does such power belong to the lesser authorities?
The entire situation is actually very similar to the political situation in Western Europe in the late 16th and 17th centuries. Since historical analogies are dangerous and usually non sequitor, I won't make them. The ethical question is still much the same. Concerning the first two points, the Jesuits developped a system of ethics called probabilism - which is still used today in many facets. New advent puts up a good definition : Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable.
Slashdot Mirror
Kids will just turn up their IPods and render those neurotic baby-boomer tax dollars and city counsel meetings irrelevant. Self-interest wins in decibels these days. Politically, socially, etc.
While this may seem a bit extreme given the matter in hand (basically the RIAA becoming the FDA of technology), its the matter of exploitation in principle that I'm addressing. We could switch the RIAA with Exxon/Mobil (and their shennigans in Venezuela), and we could have a case where moronic corrupt exploitation has caused death.
Lord only knows how many indirect assassinations have taken place in the last 100 years under the guise of what is "legal". "Legal" exploitation of economies (and therefore of individuals) has assassinated more people than all the sniper rifles in the world ever will. On the other hand, can sniper rifles aimed at the correct targets help to nip exploitation in the bud before famine, disease, starvation, and ecological disaster hit home? ;-)
Though its sort of off the topic, I can't help but want to quote Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Anyways, in WWII, an ethicist/pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, became involved with some higher ups of Hitler's staff in a plot to kill Hitler. While his motives and reasons for acting in this plot are very complex, I'll simply present a list of questions that apply to the situation at hand.
1) If you wish a freezing and starving neighbor to be warm and well-fed, but do nothing to alleviate his suffering when, in actuality, you had the means, you are guilty of oppression. By extension, if your neighbor's life is in danger (through economic turmoil imposed by the all-pervasive and holy market), but you do nothing to protect him and he dies, you are guilty of murder. On the other hand, if you kill his oppressor, you are guilty of murder. (Life is replete with catch-22 situations like this)
2)Are there alternatives to the catch-22 situation that may be concidered? How long is it necessary to wait for these alternatives if they haven't panned out to halt the corruption and exploitation. Is it ethically justifiable to keep waiting when a more direct solution (assassinations of key exploiters) is available that could save lives? For instance, how long must we wait for the precious market(which you slashdot people are strangely enamoured with) to fix the situation? If the exploitation of the market, and the media brainwashings of consumers who feed that market, is the instrument of oppression - is it ethically justifiable to kill those few elites having sway over the market and media in order to free up our alternative? Would such action just give wave to another set of key exploiters and oppressors?
3) Is it even the role of the individual in a representative democracy to take such power upon themselves, or does such power belong to the lesser authorities?
The entire situation is actually very similar to the political situation in Western Europe in the late 16th and 17th centuries. Since historical analogies are dangerous and usually non sequitor, I won't make them. The ethical question is still much the same. Concerning the first two points, the Jesuits developped a system of ethics called probabilism - which is still used today in many facets. New advent puts up a good definition : Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable.
In