Perhaps I am wrong on this, but from quick thinking it seems as if the majority of assassinations are either ineffectual or counter-productive (if they are killing someone already in power). The only exception to this thought may be a next in line killing the regent in charge, but even then it seems risky.
Examples:
1) Assuming Alexander didn't kill Phillip than whatever the assassins reason for his death was ineffectual or counter productive
2) Julius Ceasers assassination - counter productive
3) Lincoln - counter productive
4) McKinley - ineffectual
5) Garfeild - ineffectual
6) Czar Alexander II - counter productive
7) Archdule Ferdinand - I guess they got a unified Serbs, but I still think it is safe to say counter productive
I wonder why assassination is even seen as a legitamate method whith a power that is already entrenched, or when killing a massivly populist leader (MLK, Benigno Aquino, etc). Also, though to this not being extensivly researched by me, at my quick thought into it is reassuring to know that violence does seem to be a very ineffective answer, and many time self defeating. As pointed out by Aesop with the wind and the sun, persuasion does seem better than force.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
What if the polish assassinated Hitler and maybe 100 leading Nazis before Germany invaded?
What if any country knew that invading country X would result in the assassination of the leader of the invading country?
Why is it given a special name when it's a politician, when it's one of the hoi poloi it's simply murder?
I found it interesting to learn some scholastics defended tyrannicide.
Things don't change in revolutions, because at the center of all of them is replacing one power with another.
To say that the deaths of these leaders was not effective or counterproductive, is something I don't agree with. Garfeild would have helped a good deal in the fight for sound money, and non-fraudulent banking. An anarchist, Leon F. Czolgosz, shot Mckinley. I'd say that helps give a bad reputation to anarchists. Then brash Teddy claimed the throne. How about JFK? His death was also a course change in policy. Ceaser was a tyrant. Poor Cicero. The Russians might have been better off with the Czar? Lincoln favoured his greenbacks. I agree with Aesop, the trick is in persuading folks that government and it's protectionism is counterproductive to liberty, and prosperity. Power tends to also corrupt the people held under it's sway.
Some of my thoughts anyway. Good day.
Individualism Rocks
awalsh15:What if the polish assassinated Hitler and maybe 100 leading Nazis before Germany invaded?
Hitler was a fool. We should be thankful he was the leader of Germany and not someone with actual military brains.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Obviously enough, if assasination is carried out as an isolated act it will be ineffectual. In the sense that it will achieve nothing but the killing itself. That does not mean assasination is necessarily ineffectual when carried out as part of a wider plan or campaign. An assasination of a particularly influential courtier by a rival court clique can be very effective provided it enables them to take over the king`s ear. Equaly an assasination of an uncooperative official can be a success if the killers have enough influence to be able to install his successor. Similarly assasinations which are part of a wider campaign of revolutionary violence can hardly be deemed ineffectual if the revolutionaries/putchists manage to take over. Assasinations of Daoud Khan, Faisal II of Iraq or Alexander Obrenovic could hardly be deemed unsuccessful. Also the assasination of admiral Yamamoto was obviously a success since he was irreplaceable. The key is wether the assasination will create a vacuum and by whom will that vacume be filled.
meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Well, what I think he is trying to prove is that assaination are counterproductive when implied to people already in power. So with that being said, I actually agree with him.
If Hitler were to be assasinated while he was in power, it would do nothing more then fuel his cause. Hitler was look upon as the savior in Germany and he already had a book that proclaimed his agenda. If a random polish civilian were to kill Hitler, it would cause an all out war between the 2 countries, and is that not why Poland killed Hitler in the first place - because they felt he would bring the two countries to war.
In order to prevent the threat of HItler is to kill Hitler before he ever became Hitler! You would have to kill an individual before he ever became a threat, which pretty much means you are killing a innocent civilian, and wouldn't that mean you would have to kill everyone?
The only place assasination are productive is in War (assuming that the person who you are killing has his country's 100% support and effort to begin with; you wouldn't want to fuel the beast by killing a leader, in which causing the cure of the apathic community and getting them involved in war, when they weren't to being with).
LanceA: Well, what I think he is trying to prove is that assaination are counterproductive when implied to people already in power. So with that being said, I actually agree with him. If Hitler were to be assasinated while he was in power, it would do nothing more then fuel his cause. Hitler was look upon as the savior in Germany and he already had a book that proclaimed his agenda. If a random polish civilian were to kill Hitler, it would cause an all out war between the 2 countries, and is that not why Poland killed Hitler in the first place - because they felt he would bring the two countries to war. In order to prevent the threat of HItler is to kill Hitler before he ever became Hitler! You would have to kill an individual before he ever became a threat, which pretty much means you are killing a innocent civilian, and wouldn't that mean you would have to kill everyone? The only place assasination are productive is in War (assuming that the person who you are killing has his country's 100% support and effort to begin with; you wouldn't want to fuel the beast by killing a leader, in which causing the cure of the apathic community and getting them involved in war, when they weren't to being with).
That is where I was comming from with that, correct. However, it would be interesting think about power vacuums and their nature.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap