|
|
|
|
|
by s1artibartfast
1285 days ago
|
|
I had an innate negative reaction to your post and had to spend some time thinking about why that is the case. 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 |
|