There's almost no incentive to be a good leader since if it all falls apart you'll just end up living luxuriously in another country.
Why is there such a high value placed on human life that ignores the impact that person had upon the world?
Feel free to down vote but also reply with something because I think we need to reconsider the inherent value placed on human life.
If bad leaders got executed, then the incentive for bad leaders would be to stay in power no matter the cost.
The reason dictatorships turn murderous when they lose popularity is that the dictator knows they will be killed if the opposition wins, so they have no choice but to go all out and do unto the opposition before they do it to him.
That sounds plausible, but does it actually happen? I mean, tyrants have certainly fled the country to live somewhere else and retire their ambitions, but have they ever done so peacefully?
Also if there is some sort revolution how would they stay in power? Either the military supports them in which their potential fate doesn't matter or they have no way to protect themselves.
If they have the option if fleeing to another country, then at some point they could decide its in their best interest to just give up.
I think the biggest thing that caused it is the implicit assumption that increased fear for leaders would lead to better government outcomes. I'm not very confident that this is the case.
I think the other part that triggered me is that an implies some singular authority that is determining the value of human life and doling out justice, but choosing not to, when in fact there are practical considerations. Who would hold these leaders accountable, and how? If leaders flee to venezuela, should Iran declare war on venezuela? Should the US step in and attack venezuela?
Overall, I think civilization benefits more from a population that cares about the impact leaders have on them when in office and are satisfied when they are out of power. I don't think an increased amount of bloodlust and revenge in society is ultimately prosocial.
Bloodlust and focus on revenge is a genie that's hard to put back in the bottle once it's out. Endorsing it at a state level can trickle down to how individuals behave. I wouldn't want disenfranchised voters or employees murdering anyone that they felt wronged by in the present or past
No democracy could have maintained Xi's zero-covid policy for nearly 3 years.
This is a sentence that I would hope never to have associated with me. We need to re-consider the value of people's lives … on what basis? Because of the harm they have done to others, I guess. And why is that harm so bad? Because people's lives have value, surely. But should we interrogate whether all the people hurt by an official's actions were good or bad people before deciding how much to weight that official's harm to them?
If the principle of life having value doesn't extend to everyone, then it doesn't really cover anyone. To put it differently, if there is a principle according to which a life can be said to have no value, then that principle, howsoever aimed at the powerful it might initially be, will be used against the powerless.
Its was so weird when Gaddafi was killed. He was a murderous villain and the west had directly made sure that his regime would fall or even outright tried to kill him with bombings. But when some of his so-called subjects got their hands on him and finished the job it was much maligned in the press. For some reason the more power you have the less people feel like you should experience consequences.
By my understanding he sponsored IRA terrorists and unnecessarily attacked Egypt and Algeria in some minor conflicts and a few public executions (Lockerbie was pretty clearly a Syrian action).... That's it? I do think he claimed to be a murderous villain since that was working for assad
I could be wrong but on raw terms it's not too far off from say any given us president in the last 100 years
All the pain and suffering caused by Gaddafi happened off screen to unidentified people so we were silent. His killing happened very much on screen to a recognizable "bad guy" so suddenly we found moral outrage.
You don't think we should place any value on the dictator's life? Fine. Place some value on the lives of the people who would die to kick him out.
This is the wrong question. There isn't a high value on human life, the leaders are permitted to execute and kill people.
There is an incentive for people in power to not want to create a precedent for the killing of people in power, for obvious reasons of self interest.
There's also a precedent for people to live vicariously through leaders, be they a political leader or someone like Elon Musk, which can presumably lead to violence if you make them a martyr.
What scares me is I've met people like that at home in the USA.
There is a quote by a KGB defector which I lost the cite for.
"There is nowhere to defect to."
They can live in luxury, but you cannot buy respect.
Folks are allowed to show you, in small ways that you are forever unwelcome in civil society. They should do exactly that to folks who think they can try to get on a helicopter with a laptop bag full of egold like cyberpunk Ceaușescus that at best we will count the days until we can cheer their deaths if we cannot do the needful ourselves due to laws or norms.
Even Navalny came back to face the music, and he wasnt even president (yet?)
I do not believe they are self serving at the expense of their country and will live in a bunker while their countrymen are bombed. They all thought and think they were doing the right thing for their country. Even Yeltsin, when he did in 1993 what essentially the Peruvian guy is doing now — trying to dissolve parliament in a constitutional crisis, in order to perpetuate the “shock therapy” of privatizing everything to oligarchs while people started to starve.
I an sure even Stalin thought he was modernizing the country, just as Mao later did, while people were starving.
The problem isn’t that they are self serving kleptocrats. Stalin owned one suit I think, and personally was poor.
Just because they love their country and think they’re helping it, doesn’t make it true that they’re helping people though. I am sure George W Bush loved USA and wanted the best for it when he invaded Iraq. As libertarians we question the basic “patriotic common wisdom” of how things are set up in the first place.
Ah, what wouldn't I give to feel forever unwelcome in small ways but have another country's passport/bank account/etc. Heartwarming to know it's easier for those who are running my (on paper) country into mud. Guess I'll keep running around the sanctions I'm under because of them while they live in luxury and know they will be about to keep doing it no matter what goes down.
I don't think they and their helicopters should be allowed in and their funny money should not convert as it degrades democracy.
If they were ok with being hated by the world and some large percentage of their population why would they care about being respected?
I think this is huge divide between sociopaths and normal people. You think everyone cares about honor, respect, and the like but many people just want money and or power.
> What scares me is I've met people like that at home in the USA.
I'm trying to give this a charitable reading, but I'm puzzled by it.
First, I'm pretty sure that Mussolini was shot, not hanged, but obviously that doesn't change the main sentiment.
Second, I don't think I'm particularly likely to be hanged, and not much more likely than the average USian to be shot, but both those outcomes do frighten me if I think about them. So, when you say "What scares me is I've met people like that at home in the USA", do you mean people who are scared of being shot or hanged, or people who think that their likely end is being shot or hanged? Or something else?
Since you're getting a lot of reasoned replies I assume your meaning is clear to others, but I'm really having trouble figuring it out.
I wonder if there's a deepfake of that video with Putin's face instead of Gaddafi's - that would certainly freak him out :)
Putin has openly said he despises what the west did to Gaddafi and believes thats what they want for him. He not only fears it, but but said he fears for his civilization (Russia).
The west makes it pretty easy to be feareful - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-s...
Putin asked what right the west had to assassinate Gaddafi without a trial and destroy all the countries infrastructure
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2268833/vladimir-putin-killed-g...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-libya-idUSTR...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/26/libya-us-briti...
[0]: Joint project with EU, UNDP to clear 80,000 mines in eastern Turkey https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/eu-affairs/joint-project...
> In early-November, an unnamed source at Tehran's Imam Khomeini Airport told Kayhan-London
> Citing an unnamed Iranian source,
> There are also unconfirmed reports that officials are transferring their assets to friendly countries
Basically, "source? trust me bro!"
This particular influence operation is headquartered in London and is owned by Volant Media, and receives donations from Saudi Arabia[1]. Volant has offices in Washington DC, and owns this and a sister publication called "Afghanistan International", which was launched immediately after the Taliban capture of Kabul, and is now focused on waging information warfare against Afghanistan.
"Iran International TV emerged abruptly on the London media scene last year; many of the 100-strong staff network were offered generous salaries, often double what rivals paid, but was elusive about its source of funding."
"The source claimed Saud al-Qahtani, the crown prince’s information tsar, who was among two senior officials removed in connection with the Khashoggi affair, was involved in the funding behind Iran International TV."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/31/concern-over-u...
(I'm a big fan of personal diplomacy, in the sense I used to loudly joke I might one day become a test case for the Logan Act :-))
Just because Kosovo is Muslim-majority does not mean they're friendly to the Iranian regime.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/russian-mercenary-group-wagn...
Sorry -- I didn't mean to insult folks from Kosovo or Albania.
(I'm not a nationalist, I just utilize the existing neoliberal laws and norms to move us to something more respectful of personal autonomy while respecting basic human rights, but I've noticed how lack of shared language can cause issues when everything else is put aside)
Libya? Egypt? Be specific. Let's plan where they will go and prepare for their arrival.
(I'm childfree in the "listens to a lot of crystal method" sense, but you run into all sorts.)
