Governments say we are not allowed to kill people.<\/p>\n
Then the government of Country A decides it wants some people killed in Country B to achieve regime change \/ combat terror \/ deal with a drugs problem \/ whatever.\u00a0 The nation is merely an intangible social construct with no means to do anything meaning it requires people to do its work.\u00a0 So the government orders its people to kill some people in Country B.\u00a0 But some people who agree with the government that killing is wrong refuse to go and they get punished by their government, sometimes by killing them.<\/p>\n
So the government is run by people in power who say killing is wrong and these people in power are ordering its citizens to kill other people \u2013 meaning the people in power have the power of life and death over the citizens of other countries and also the power to decide when killing is illegal or killing is a good thing and in the national interests.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile the government and people of Country B who also say killing is wrong, including their own citizens being killed by another country.\u00a0 So the people in power in Country B respond by telling their people to go and kill people from Country A.<\/p>\n
So now both countries’ citizens \u2013 whose governments claim they are there to represent, protect and nurture their people \u2013 are killing one another on the orders of the people in power.<\/p>\n
But the citizens of both countries are not allowed to kill anyone when they want to, merely when they are told to.<\/p>\n
And yet those who stick to the original principle of killing being wrong are themselves made to suffer harm because they won’t participate in the killing.<\/p>\n
This does not make any sense.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Governments say we are not allowed to kill people. Then the government of Country A decides it wants some people killed in Country B to achieve regime change \/ combat terror \/ deal with a drugs problem \/ whatever.\u00a0 The … Continue reading