It depends on the capital owned by that person. If they’re just a high level accountant or a minor player with little influence, they’re not worth the trouble. If they’re a major shareholder at a company that’s exploits its workers, then a lot is justified if it results in the end of the exploitation (it likely wouldn’t tbf). It doesn’t matter if they work in the games industry or the fossil fuels industry; the owning class needs to have their power stripped from them, and they aren’t gonna give it willingly. That will only ever happen through violence, be it state or non state, threats or actions. There is no other way to accomplish it, and anyone who thinks we can do it peacefully is wrong.
As far as public politicians go, many of them gleefully pen laws that lead to the deaths and ruin of innocent people. As the right to freely vote and elect alternatives to these ghouls gets further and further eroded, it might become literally impossible to remove them by voting rather than practically so. If the only ones allowed political power are people that terrorize the population with the law, then what voice do the people have? If the only party in charge is a Nazi party, then shouldn’t you be ok with killing them?
What I will agree on is that fantasizing about punishing people is not helpful. Terrible people cannot be made to feel the weight of their sins, only prevented from doing more terrible things. If all the kings and lords willingly gave their wealth and power back to the workers and civilians, then it would be wrong to seek retribution. It’s also unlikely that killing a terrible person or two will really change things. A lone act can only ever be a statement, terrorism of the ruling class.
However, that also means that we shouldn’t consider if someone is a sympathetic person, only the totality of their past and potential future actions. They might be a good spouse and a good parent, but if they are responsible for imprisoning minorities and starving children, then they need be stopped. Billionaires and the politicians that support them are orders of magnitude more dangerous to humanity than serial killers, and need to be treated more harshly than they are. If unpleasant violence is the best way to stop them, then I think it’s wrong to be against that.
It depends on the capital owned by that person. If they’re just a high level accountant or a minor player with little influence, they’re not worth the trouble. If they’re a major shareholder at a company that’s exploits its workers, then a lot is justified if it results in the end of the exploitation (it likely wouldn’t tbf). It doesn’t matter if they work in the games industry or the fossil fuels industry; the owning class needs to have their power stripped from them, and they aren’t gonna give it willingly. That will only ever happen through violence, be it state or non state, threats or actions. There is no other way to accomplish it, and anyone who thinks we can do it peacefully is wrong.
As far as public politicians go, many of them gleefully pen laws that lead to the deaths and ruin of innocent people. As the right to freely vote and elect alternatives to these ghouls gets further and further eroded, it might become literally impossible to remove them by voting rather than practically so. If the only ones allowed political power are people that terrorize the population with the law, then what voice do the people have? If the only party in charge is a Nazi party, then shouldn’t you be ok with killing them?
What I will agree on is that fantasizing about punishing people is not helpful. Terrible people cannot be made to feel the weight of their sins, only prevented from doing more terrible things. If all the kings and lords willingly gave their wealth and power back to the workers and civilians, then it would be wrong to seek retribution. It’s also unlikely that killing a terrible person or two will really change things. A lone act can only ever be a statement, terrorism of the ruling class.
However, that also means that we shouldn’t consider if someone is a sympathetic person, only the totality of their past and potential future actions. They might be a good spouse and a good parent, but if they are responsible for imprisoning minorities and starving children, then they need be stopped. Billionaires and the politicians that support them are orders of magnitude more dangerous to humanity than serial killers, and need to be treated more harshly than they are. If unpleasant violence is the best way to stop them, then I think it’s wrong to be against that.