Is it morally acceptable to completely and without selection exterminate the ruling class?
Is it more than acceptable, in case of a threat to survival?
The French, Russian, American … way?!
When you eliminate one ruler you get another just dressed differently and sounding differently for awhile.
Then they become what you removed. Why? Because enthusiasm and maintenance is hard to maintain while trying to survive and thrive
Well, considering you have the economic access to post on the internet, and the freedom to write what you just did without fear of prosecution, I’d say there’s a good chance most of the world considers you to be part of the ruling class, ravencry4all.
The two of you can always amaze me!
It is almost funny, how you avoid answering the question.
If I’am the ruling class, you wouldn’t be posting! 
Let’s see Hong Kong!
Simply restricting the individuals running, the rulers of China are taking all freedom from the people.
Can you see that, or need pictures?
Once that is done, and the state is in complete control, are they responsible and accountable for the whole state?
You can always buy someone to write the news you want, pay someone to keep order, and threaten someone to shut up, or find someone to torture and kill.
Now! In case the controlling group, not necessarily a class, manages to drive the place into an economic and/or social disaster, either through incompetence or just to stay in power:
Are the masses within their right to exterminate their rulers?
If you believe that rights are handed down by the state, then “Do the citizens have the right to exterminate their leaders” is a nonsense question. If you think rights come from somewhere else, then let’s hear where you think they come from.
Do I think it's morally right for the citizenry to overthrow their leaders if their leaders are causing economic or social disaster? Yes, I think in some cases it is right. However, I'm aware that people will use terms like 'economic or social disaster' in such liberal, self-serving ways, that they will call for succession or [i]coup d'etat[/i] for the most trivial of reasons if you try to generalize the maxim.
So, what do you consider social/economic disaster? People actually eating each other and being executed based on rumors like in North Korea? Or are you trying to build a case for a violent overthrow because the energy industry is insufficiently ‘green’ or minimum wage won’t pay for a two bedroom apartment? See, that’s the problem- language like ‘economic disaster’ is being tossed around so casually that it hardly means anything. I’m not sure ‘social disaster’ ever had a meaning outside of fancy dinner parties.
I did not avoid the question I just gave the results of an overthrow. If you just want a yes or no then, yes and no.
In any way shape or form!
Not asking about an overthrow!
Talking annihilation!
Like the French revolution.
Social disaster? For example the fall of Berlin or Jerusalem.
There is always a time for such, you just have to be sure of the time.
Let’s be specific, in terms of who the ruling class is, another loose word thrown around. Certainly not the government, they are elected officials. The rich? There is too many of them in this country. The US middle class is rich compared to other parts of the
world. Or is the overall wordly ruling class whih is considered? The French Revolution was a special case of a thin layer of French society, maybe a comparison
here is not appropriate, i don’t know.
It wasn’t really a question, just wanted to start out a discussion about it.
The French was a special case!?
The English nobility doesn’t think so!
They are still outraged on it.
Some considers themselves special, like Emperors and Kings and Royals or Nobles.
It was considered a sacrilege to target or harm or even just to consider such action against a ruler anointed by God.
The absolute power in society is when the power and influence, or in other words righteousness of one is beyond questioning.
Today’s rulers are attempting to achieve that same level of acceptance, then use it for personal benefit.
Germans during WWII? Some even tried to kill Hitler, but not the entire Nazi leadership.
At the end most were killed anyway, but first they ruined the country.
More complex is the case of WWI.
A few rulers and emperors, pretty much a single dynasty started an actual extermination of the lower classes by sending them to certain deaf y the millions.
If that wasn’t a reason to hang them all …
Of course there are those who only want to terrorize a select group, but those will find a way to do that anyway.
Like the police of Ferguson and the KKK or the Muslim brotherhood, or Dick of the Cheney’s.
Germans should’ve stood up to the Nazi propaganda, like the Egyptians did to the Brotherhood.
The CIA never should’ve financed Bin Laden.
Abu Ghraib and Fallujah never should’ve happened.
Is peaceful overthrow or revolution possible, or the powerful will protect the status quo to the bitter end?
It sounds like you’re just asking for societal permission to turn to violence when you can’t get your way with a discussion or a vote. You need to actually look at the specific conditions that would justify a citizenry violently overthrowing it’s Government- you can’t just growl “Dick Cheney” and expect that to justify everything you say like it’s 2006.
Like I hinted in my last post, the question of "Is it ever justified for the people to overthrow their State" isn't a very good question, because it's far too easy. Pretty much everybody will say 'yes', even Hobbes if you read him through to the end. The question that's actually worth discussing is [i]under what circumstances[/i] does violence become justified. I'd submit that "I read a blog article about the CIA and it got me all mad" probably doesn't qualify.
Almost, but not exactly.
Not violence, more like rage, or executions.
The hunt for Gaddafi or the Ceaușescus would be examples.
Justification is hard to clarify, the impact is so long term, and there is no chance to consider alternative outcomes.
Natural event similar would be Mount St Helens.
It blew away part of the mountain, but release the pressure, and is now recovering.
You might say that Hawaii is an opposite example, but now we know that it also went through catastrophic events, and it will again.
Can real change come in any other form than a landslide or eruption, a short term chaos followed by long term calm?
You aren’t going to examine the question of when violent overthrow is justified and when it is not? Ok.
Emmm… yes.
Was the eruption of Mount St Helens justified?
When enough presser is built up, just or not consideration is academic.
The US is still fighting the the civil war, the English are still occupying Scotland, and India together with Pakistan is a mess.
Well done Gandhi!
The Germans are still looking for an empire, the Russians are left out of Europe, but Israel competes in the UEFA.
No antagonistic personal beliefs ever get peacefully resolved.
divide at impera
What, when and how?
Some groups rather go under than revolt, while others have the courage to be the sphinx.
Rebirth by fire.
You are the one that phrased this issue as a moral question.
You are right again, but not exactly!
I think we are beyond that questions like that.
What I meant is, would that be one reason for the difference in reaction.
Is the choice between the two reactions based on morality or something else?
It is fascinating, how a similar situation triggers a completely different response.