NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a thought - if someone killed, for example, the president of their nation, would it be treason, or murder?

And if it's treason does that mean that the president is superior to normal people?

Here's a thought - if someone killed, for example, the president of their nation, would it be treason, or murder?

And if it's treason does that mean that the president is superior to normal people?
I believe murder If I remember right (unless the killer is millitary ... then the president is a superior officer)

It depends upon the laws of the country. Assassination of the US President is murder, assassination of the King of the United Kingdom is treason.

I think it depends on motive.

If he did it because he's a French sympathizer, then it's treason. If he did it to collect the insurance money, then it's murder.

It depends upon the laws of the country. Assassination of the US President is murder, assassination of the King of the United Kingdom is treason.

I know that the King (or Queen as it has been since 1952...) is supposedly superior to normal people (though I doubt many people believe that nowadays), I'm just wondering if supposedly free countries have the same special treatment for their rulers.

I know that the King (or Queen as it has been since 1952...) is supposedly superior to normal people (though I doubt many people believe that nowadays), I'm just wondering if supposedly free countries have the same special treatment for their rulers.
I don't think so. Probably it is the case in some former British colonies, as a relic of the past association with the UK.

I think it depends on motive.

If he did it because he's a French sympathizer, then it's treason. If he did it to collect the insurance money, then it's murder.

LOL French sympathizer... I'm offended and amused at the same time.

Goofballs is right, if you do it for poltical reasons it's murder and Treason(treasonous murder, perhaps?), but if you just kill him because you wanted to kill, not to harm the US it's just murder. Both assume the individual is from the US.

trea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

Here's a thought - if someone killed, for example, the president of their nation, would it be treason, or murder?

And if it's treason does that mean that the president is superior to normal people?


Why? What are you planning? ^_^

LOL French sympathizer... I'm offended and amused at the same time.

Goofballs is right, if you do it for poltical reasons it's murder and Treason(treasonous murder, perhaps?), but if you just kill him because you wanted to kill, not to harm the US it's just murder. Both assume the individual is from the US.

...

I think that's a bit more complicated. Treason is defined is the US Constitution as 'levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.'

Assassination is not 'levying war' per se, so the assassin commits an act of treason if he is not only the President's murderer but also an adherent of some enemy of the United States, who decides to help that enemy by killing the US commander-in-chief.

I know that the King (or Queen as it has been since 1952...) is supposedly superior to normal people (though I doubt many people believe that nowadays), I'm just wondering if supposedly free countries have the same special treatment for their rulers.

[Looks around] Did the UK stop being free now?

(I'm assuming that's not what you meant, but it was just too good an opportunity to pass up)

trea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

I'm not sure I know any countries which use the dictionary as law...

[Looks around] Did the UK stop being free now?

(I'm assuming that's not what you meant, but it was just too good an opportunity to pass up)

Did the UK ever start being free?

Here's a thought - if someone killed, for example, the president of their nation, would it be treason, or murder?

And if it's treason does that mean that the president is superior to normal people?
Depends on if the president was a corrupt bastard or not. If the person was doing it to save the country, then it would only be murder.

Depends on if the president was a corrupt bastard or not. If the person was doing it to save the country, then it would only be murder.

Are you claiming that some presidents aren't corrupt bastards?

be careful about how you post on this topic....you could get some uninvited attention from the Secret Service.

Why? What are you planning? ^_^

No idea, but I might help :p

Are you claiming that some presidents aren't corrupt bastards?

Sorry, but you remind me of a previous poster (or "nation" to be pedantic), did you have a previous nation/account before Marmite Toast?

Don't mean to intrude :)

be careful about how you post on this topic....you could get some uninvited attention from the Secret Service.

Only US citizens? That's a joke. The US's monitoring is an international collaboration.

Sorry, but you remind me of a previous poster (or "nation" to be pedantic), did you have a previous nation/account before Marmite Toast?

Don't mean to intrude :)

I've had numerous previous accounts. I've been on NS since before April 2003. Which poster? (It's unlikely to be me if it has 1000+ posts though - I dont post that much)

I've had numerous previous accounts. I've been on NS since before April 2003. Which poster? (It's unlikely to be me if it has 1000+ posts though - I dont post that much)

Not quite sure which poster. Cannot put my finger on it :(

(Though I have one in mind, stupid memory)

No idea, but I might help :p

I'm not planning anything. Destroying the government would only replace it with another. People need to become individuals - they must be free in thought to become free in action. And if everyone acts freely, there is no uncaring collective that neglects the individual.

Did the UK ever start being free?

Well, we never had a violent revolution to rid ourselves of the monarchy, if that's-- oh, wait, yes we did. We brought them back. [Waves the 'England had a Civil War too' flag]

Yes, Britain got to freedom by a gradual route, rather than war against its parent country (because it never had one). Doesn't make us any less free. Whether it makes us /more/ free (because of having spent time working on it rather than just writing a few fancy documents declaring it) is a subject I'll be happy to debate if the opportunity arises, but that's not now.

Well, we never had a violent revolution to rid ourselves of the monarchy, if that's-- oh, wait, yes we did. We brought them back. [Waves the 'England had a Civil War too' flag]

Yes, Britain got to freedom by a gradual route, rather than war against its parent country (because it never had one). Doesn't make us any less free. Whether it makes us /more/ free (because of having spent time working on it rather than just writing a few fancy documents declaring it) is a subject I'll be happy to debate if the opportunity arises, but that's not now.

No need. I don't believe that violent revolution can bring about peace. Only when the people act, as individuals, on the desire for freedom can it be achieved.

No need. I don't believe that violent revolution can bring about peace. Only when the people act, as individuals, on the desire for freedom can it be achieved.

I guess it all depends on your definition of 'free'. I mean, some people would say that blowing things up is the /only/ way they can be free.

I guess it all depends on your definition of 'free'. I mean, some people would say that blowing things up is the /only/ way they can be free.

My definition of free is unrestricted, not controlled, able to turn desire into action. Not to be the cause of rapid exothermic reactions in a confined space.

My definition of free is unrestricted, not controlled, able to turn desire into action. Not to be the cause of rapid exothermic reactions in a confined space.

But breakaway oxidation phenomena are /fun/...

Does that imply /any/ desire, then? Curious now.

My definition of free is unrestricted, not controlled, able to turn desire into action. Not to be the cause of rapid exothermic reactions in a confined space.

Then the only free humans are those with very few and simple desires... and no current nation offers complete freedom.

I'm not planning anything. Destroying the government would only replace it with another. People need to become individuals - they must be free in thought to become free in action. And if everyone acts freely, there is no uncaring collective that neglects the individual.

Ahh too true.

But it'll give me something interesting to do :)

Then the only free humans are those with very few and simple desires... and no current nation offers complete freedom.

No nation can offer complete freedom ;)

No nation can offer complete freedom ;)

True. To do so, it would have to stop being a nation. A nation has to be bound together by certain core concepts, whatever those may be.

A /planet/, however...

(Of course, only all-powerful beings can have complete freedom)

But breakaway oxidation phenomena are /fun/...

Does that imply /any/ desire, then? Curious now.

I don't believe people should do evil, but I don't think that government really prevents this anyway.

Then the only free humans are those with very few and simple desires... and no current nation offers complete freedom.

Hence, we come to the conclusion that nations suck.

I don't believe people should do evil, but I don't think that government really prevents this anyway.

But if they desire to do so, you think they should have the freedom to do so?

Hence, we come to the conclusion that nations suck.

Utterly. Sadly, they're the best we've got.

I'm not sure I know any countries which use the dictionary as law...

I think most systems of Judicial Precedent make extensive use of the dictionary. The UK version certainly does.

Motivation is what defines treason. For example if I shout "Down with Blair!" at a rally against corrupt trade prctices that would be patriotic but if I shouted it at a meeting of Scottish ultra-nationalists it could be considered treasonous.

No nation can offer complete freedom ;)

Why not ? A nation does not have to consist of individuals with different or conflicting desires - although that does mean you must design the nation and its population. And probably that you have extemely advanced technology capable of providing everything people desire..

Hence, we come to the conclusion that nations suck.

OK. Going out on a limb. Ever go by the name "Dischordiac?"

(And I agree with the above sentiment)

Utterly. Sadly, they're [nations] the best we've got.

"We may as well stick with absolutist monarchy, after all it is the best we have got."

-Peasant c. Mid 18th Century France

Why not ?

A nation acts in its own interests, not the interest of its citizens (or subjects as the case may be). Though the two interests may occasionally be the same, the interests of the nation become more important to the nation than the interests of the citizens.

It is not in the best interests of the nation to give citizens complete freedom.

A nation does not have to consist of individuals with different or conflicting desires - although that does mean you must design the nation and its population. And probably that you have extemely advanced technology capable of providing everything people desire..

That or a tanker load of soma.

If a nation load of individuals all march with the same purpose, chances are they are not individuals. When you get a group of people together interests will clash. This is not nessaserily a bad thing though.

"We may as well stick with absolutist monarchy, after all it is the best we have got."

-Peasant c. Mid 18th Century France

Can we have that in French, please? And in his own handwriting?

But really. There's a difference in the scale of things. Not every country was run by an absolutist monarchy back then. You'll be hard pressed to find an area of the world that isn't within national boundaries today, and is still habitable. Why? Well, it's probably the fault of the European Empires, mostly.

Regardless, dissolving a nation's borders would just lead to it being annexed by another nation. Unless we can get rid of /all/ nations at once, of course.

But if they desire to do so, you think they should have the freedom to do so?
I think evil behaviour is usually the result of an unhealthy mind, and that truly freeing the mind would remove people's evil tendencies. It wouldn't work on some people, but self-defense ought to come in handy here.

I'm not advocating a political doctrine that I think people should adhere to (quite the opposite), I'm advocating a freedom of mind that I believe could lead to a better world.

Utterly. Sadly, they're the best we've got.
Yes, but one can hope for the future...

OK. Going out on a limb. Ever go by the name "Dischordiac?"

Nope.

Can we have that in French, please? And in his own handwriting?

Yep. If you care to come to Manchester and track me down :p

(NB: I probably won't be here for long, so act quick ;))

But really. There's a difference in the scale of things. Not every country was run by an absolutist monarchy back then.

Though the more "successful" nations were.

You'll be hard pressed to find an area of the world that isn't within national boundaries today, and is still habitable. Why? Well, it's probably the fault of the European Empires, mostly.

Regardless, dissolving a nation's borders would just lead to it being annexed by another nation. Unless we can get rid of /all/ nations at once, of course.

Well yes. I think only the most fool hardy people will think a nation will be able to unilatterally dissolve itself at this very instance without severe reperkuccions(I know sp :() happening.

It'll take an even bigger fool to think all nations could do it.

Still though, even if the modern liberal democratic nation is the best we have got, it doesn't mean we should settle with it.

Nope.

:(

Won't you even give me a clue?

I'm sure it is on the tip of my tongue. I have a few other guesses, but they are even longer shots than Dischordiac.

I think evil behaviour is usually the result of an unhealthy mind, and that truly freeing the mind would remove people's evil tendencies. It wouldn't work on some people, but self-defense ought to come in handy here.

I'm not advocating a political doctrine that I think people should adhere to (quite the opposite), I'm advocating a freedom of mind that I believe could lead to a better world.

Of course, one major problem is that it would require an almost total restart to society, including a multi-gigadeath. The vast majority of people on this rock simply could not /cope/ with the concept of living outside a national situation. They'd clump together and form governments - probably starting out as mutual protection groups. And you'd also have the problem that a lot of people would see the removal of laws as the right to do whatever they want. It's the same principle that means destroyed cities will be looted. No rules means people do what they've always wanted to, but never have been able to. I'm not saying this would happen if they were brought up in a non-national society, but in the formation of one, you'd get a lot of destruction.

:(

Won't you even give me a clue?

I'm sure it is on the tip of my tongue. I have a few other guesses, but they are even longer shots than Dischordiac.

I didn't realise you wanted to know. OK, here are all the nations I have used to post in general (I think):

FunkyMonkeyLand
Clonetopia
The Underground City
Shadowstorm Imperium
Marmite Toast

Yep. If you care to come to Manchester and track me down :p

Manchester? Nah, I won't bother.

Well yes. I think only the most fool hardy people will think a nation will be able to unilatterally dissolve itself at this very instance without severe reperkuccions(I know sp :() happening.

It'll take an even bigger fool to think all nations could do it.

Still though, even if the modern liberal democratic nation is the best we have got, it doesn't mean we should settle with it.

Repercussions, I believe.

Yes, and we won't settle for it. We'll keep on trying for a better society, but for now, and for the forseeable future (barring catastrophic events) we have to work within the national framework.

Of course, one major problem is that it would require an almost total restart to society, including a multi-gigadeath. The vast majority of people on this rock simply could not /cope/ with the concept of living outside a national situation. They'd clump together and form governments - probably starting out as mutual protection groups. And you'd also have the problem that a lot of people would see the removal of laws as the right to do whatever they want. It's the same principle that means destroyed cities will be looted. No rules means people do what they've always wanted to, but never have been able to. I'm not saying this would happen if they were brought up in a non-national society, but in the formation of one, you'd get a lot of destruction.

I never advocated governments just being removed, and everyone having to adapt. I think the people should change first, and that will cause the downfall of governments.

I didn't realise you wanted to know. OK, here are all the nations I have used to post in general (I think):

FunkyMonkeyLand
Clonetopia
The Underground City
Shadowstorm Imperium
Marmite Toast

I recognise the middle three.

Clonetopia is the one I think I was thinking of.

It isn't so much I wanted to know. It was just it was bugging by alcohol addled mind :)

Or might it be considered sedition, if:

The murderer is a member of a militant group/insurgency against the established government, wishing to topple said government by knocking off the prez?

I recognise the middle three.

Clonetopia is the one I think I was thinking of.

It isn't so much I wanted to know. It was just it was bugging by alcohol addled mind :)

Clonetopia was your guess? Well done. I didn't know I had a recognisable posting style.

Manchester? Nah, I won't bother.

:D

Agh, you cheap southern pansy :p </jk>


Repercussions, I believe.

Never was good at spelling

Yes, and we won't settle for it. We'll keep on trying for a better society, but for now, and for the forseeable future (barring catastrophic events) we have to work within the national framework.

Bugger.

(Though by and by large I agree, except for a few minor things)

I never advocated governments just being removed, and everyone having to adapt. I think the people should change first, and that will cause the downfall of governments.

Exactly. But that method - the slow, gradual way that works best - will take time. We won't live to see it. Which, incidentally, I don't mind, but a lot of people advocating this sort of thing want results as soon as they can, come what may and hell to pay.

:D

Agh, you cheap southern pansy :p </jk>

Down here, I used to get called on my Northern accent practically every day...

Although my reasoning was mainly that I just don't like Manchester.

Exactly. But that method - the slow, gradual way that works best - will take time. We won't live to see it. Which, incidentally, I don't mind, but a lot of people advocating this sort of thing want results as soon as they can, come what may and hell to pay.

Takes time certainly, but it would be an exponential growth as it spreads through the people.

I would be happy if people were simply willing to protect their rights against the government (i.e. be vigilant against the transformation into an Orwellian state).

Clonetopia was your guess? Well done. I didn't know I had a recognisable posting style.

I think so.

Though I'm not sure of much any more :(

It wasn't so much a recognisable posting style, as a vague feeling I had seen you seen you post under a different alias before.

Down here, I used to get called on my Northern accent practically every day...

Although my reasoning was mainly that I just don't like Manchester.

Ahh, cannot blame you for that. I used to love the place. Though I think I die a little inside everyday I spend here. :(

Takes time certainly, but it would be an exponential growth as it spreads through the people.

Yes, true, but we have to get the growth going first.

I would be happy if people were simply willing to protect their rights against the government (i.e. be vigilant against the transformation into an Orwellian state).

To be fair, a lot of that is down to the fact that the government - the world, even - is getting very paranoid about terrorist attacks. I think there's a 'we haven't had one in a while, there must be one coming!' thing going on. Personally, I think that as the two major attacks have been on Air and Land (World Trade Centre and that thing in Spain), we should be watching our ships... but that's just me.

The other problem is that we have an effective two-party system, where both parties are very similar. We really need a more liberal (literally here - liberal as in open to change, as opposed to conservative, opposed to it) government to get this sort of thing going, and as the last election showed a swing to the Conservatives... well.

Maybe once the mess in the Middle-East dries up or gets solved, we can get back to making a real society.

To be fair, a lot of that is down to the fact that the government - the world, even - is getting very paranoid about terrorist attacks. I think there's a 'we haven't had one in a while, there must be one coming!' thing going on. Personally, I think that as the two major attacks have been on Air and Land (World Trade Centre and that thing in Spain), we should be watching our ships... but that's just me.

Not just that, but when we are kept in a state of fear we seem to be more open to giving up freedoms we have, thinking that they are unimportant, and can be easily given up, in regards to maintaining our safety.

That just looks wrong.

Should have just stuck with that Franklin quotation.

It wasn't so much a recognisable posting style, as a vague feeling I had seen you seen you post under a different alias before.

Well, the only way you've seen me is in my posts. So, it would have to be a posting style.

To be fair, a lot of that is down to the fact that the government - the world, even - is getting very paranoid about terrorist attacks. I think there's a 'we haven't had one in a while, there must be one coming!' thing going on. Personally, I think that as the two major attacks have been on Air and Land (World Trade Centre and that thing in Spain), we should be watching our ships... but that's just me.
Or the government are using the people's fear of terrorism as justification.

The other problem is that we have an effective two-party system, where both parties are very similar. We really need a more liberal (literally here - liberal as in open to change, as opposed to conservative, opposed to it) government to get this sort of thing going, and as the last election showed a swing to the Conservatives... well.
I think country-wide politics should be minimised anyway. Local governments are better - specially if they're local enough that one can meet one's government in person to discuss issues - I like individuals, not collective bodies.

Maybe once the mess in the Middle-East dries up or gets solved, we can get back to making a real society.
We can hope - but if the government gets too much power, and the people become more reluctant to be free (as it means extra responsibility) - we'll be stuck with them.

Or the government are using the people's fear of terrorism as justification.

Oh, probably. The primary goal of government is to give the people /no/ freedom - it makes things so much easier to run.

I think country-wide politics should be minimised anyway. Local governments are better - specially if they're local enough that one can meet one's government in person to discuss issues - I like individuals, not collective bodies.

The problem with that is that... well, two things. One is that interaction with other locations gets a lot more complicated - what if your power all comes from another region which decides to stop giving you any? - and the other, the more dangerous, is that it makes it very easy for extremists to take over in areas. Of course, the solution to /that/ is a fully mobile society, but most people won't be willing to leave their homes too quickly.

We can hope - but if the government gets too much power, and the people become more reluctant to be free (as it means extra responsibility) - we'll be stuck with them.

Alas, all too true. I think the first move is to bring in the Liberal Democrats as a viable opposition party to one of the others. Whether you believe they're better or not (and I do), having a /choice/ to make will start the people thinking.

The problem with that is that... well, two things. One is that interaction with other locations gets a lot more complicated - what if your power all comes from another region which decides to stop giving you any?
I don't think that is a realistic scenario, unless you are talking about two communistic regions one of which provides power purely out of altruism.

- and the other, the more dangerous, is that it makes it very easy for extremists to take over in areas. Of course, the solution to /that/ is a fully mobile society, but most people won't be willing to leave their homes too quickly.
Can you explain this?

Alas, all too true. I think the first move is to bring in the Liberal Democrats as a viable opposition party to one of the others. Whether you believe they're better or not (and I do), having a /choice/ to make will start the people thinking.
Sadly, I have difficult believing that pointing a gun at people's heads and saying "think or die" would make them think.

I don't think that is a realistic scenario, unless you are talking about two communistic regions one of which provides power purely out of altruism.

Well, perhaps not power. Some other resource, maybe. If you're a single Urban area, the Farming areas may decide that it's not worth their while to sell food to you, rather than closer areas.

Can you explain this?

Which bit? Extremists could take over easily because it would be a small government, and - say - a string of murders in the area, which would be ignored on a national scale, could easily spark off a scare that would lead to curfews and the like.

As to the mobile society bit, it would mean that people who don't like the policies would be able to move out easily, and also that population shift would mean that large numbers of more free-minded people would move into the area reasonably soon, negating the opressive governing.

Sadly, I have difficult believing that pointing a gun at people's heads and saying "think or die" would make them think.

Most people will never think, or at least not above the level absolutely necessary. Such a pity. Even worse is when the ones who do swing to the opressive side of things. You have to be able to think to be a dictator, really, unless you're just a puppet.

Only US citizens? That's a joke. The US's monitoring is an international collaboration.


I didn't imply that there was not international collaboration, did I?

I was addressing US citizens who could be prosecuted in the US for making a stupid statement in here that could get them into trouble.

This is no joking matter; you are not compelled to accept, must less recognize, timely and wise advice.

Here's a thought - if someone killed, for example, the president of their nation, would it be treason, or murder?

And if it's treason does that mean that the president is superior to normal people?

Whatever your thinking... DO IT. However, if you get the chance, aim for the guy with the heart problems first. He's a bigger bastard.

It depends upon the laws of the country. Assassination of the US President is murder, assassination of the King of the United Kingdom is treason.

Their is no king we have a queen, you fool!!!!!!!!!

Their is no king we have a queen, you fool!!!!!!!!!
Oh really? :rolleyes:

The Treason Act of 1351 speaks about 'our lord the King', and I chose to use its term.