Luigi did it, and he really was that stupid.
Given that he was valedictorian at his school, I find that unlikely to be the option.
I think you're missing a 4th option:
- He did it, and believed it not worth the anxiety/suffering of living the rest of his life as a wanted man, so did what he could to get away from the immediate scene but ultimately turn himself in so to speak.
And there are almost certainly more nuanced options out there.
That's only something that could pretty much only be proven with a paper trail, which isn't necessarily possible.
How very protect and serve of him.
Are you there universal monk?
Homes, medical treatment, and financial stability are all a lot more expensive than bougie consumer products.
And while the average american can usually figure out how evil the oligarchy is, thinking through solutions and actions is a much bigger ask for the average american.
- gmod 1,800 hrs
- Terraria 800 hrs
- Factorio 800 hrs
- Ksp 600 hrs
- Civ V 500 hrs
All successful, meaningful, peaceful movements have had violent allies, or allies who were threatening violence.
I've played enough KSP to know that's a good location to crash.
You said intentional.
I'll grant you that I could have phrased it more clearly, but I was speaking about the 2A for that section:
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
Perhaps, but if it’s ever used to support justice then it’s inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.
Yes, which is why it cannot simply be labeled corruption in all cases. It's dependent on the case it's used in. It can be used to free somebody from stealing food for their star ijg family, it can be used to let lynchers get away with their horrid actions, and everything in-between.
Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?
Because the majority of the time it isn't applicable, or used. It's an edge case.
I said inherent, not intentional.
And it's not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It's entirely based on the case it's used in.
Mergers should be illegal.
Once against proving we have a two tiered justice system.
The difference is self defense. As stated elsewhere in this thread, we should all agree its morally acceptable to kill nazis. With them, it's either kill or be killed. If we didn't step up against them in WW2 it would have been disastrous. And with CEOs, billionaires, and other business execs it's no different. They're actively killing everyone they can as quickly as they can because it makes them a quick buck.
So ultimately it boils down to self defense.
A state however gets no self defense out of capital punishment. It instead becomes a way to silence political opponents, innocents routinely are executed, and so on. The state cannot be granted the power to kill because it will abuse it. The people eventually need to defend themselves from the state when it is granted this power.
The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor.
Sure there is. History is littered with examples. Though a more full explanation of the solution is probably a violation of the TOS.
IIRC the problem there is that it potentially makes you liable to be sued by the company for disclosing negative/private information. But they can't exactly hold you liable if you're dead, so if you're dead you may as well speak what you know from beyond the grave.