Dear Friends,
It seems to me that if a person, (the originator), points a gun at another, aims at the victim’s heart, pulls the trigger, the mechanism of the gun operates, the hammer drives the pin into the primer, the primer’s explosive goes off, fire is ejected through the touch hole into the cartridge, the powder in the cartridge is ignited, the deflagrating powder and the resulting pressure pushes the bullet from the cartridge at great velocity, the bullet interacts with the barrel and the rifling in the barrel, imparting a spin, thus a gyroscopic effect to the speeding bullet, the bullet flies unerringly to the target, penetrating the victim’s chest, passing through the heart, exiting the back, flying erratically until it impacts some object and comes to a rest… that person is responsible for the effects of his or her original cause, ie, shooting the gun at someone, and the precognition of the events, that would probably take place from his or her original cause, has relevance to their guilt.
What about if a person had personal knowledge that the ice on a lake was thin. Checked the ice and verified that it was thin. Then gathered a group of people and urged them onto the ice. Some people would complain that the ice was too thin and no one should go onto it. Then the original person called for the complainers and conspiracy theorists to be shut up. The group then taped the complainers mouths shut. Then the group, (except the originator) go out onto the ice, the limit of the ice’s ability to support weight is exceeded and the ice catastrophically fails. The whole group falls into frigid water, many necessarily die. The only person who is safe, is the person who has stayed on the shore, the originator. Is that person not equally as responsible as the person who shoots the gun at another? In every way?
Consider the example of the man who knows the end result of initially “democratic” uprisings, has researched the outcomes of historical events and their ramifications to World history and the effects on Mankind, then urge a group of people to gather and stage a “democratic” uprising, they fire the group up with rhetoric and stories of “democracy.” Some people complain, however, that uprisings are dangerous. Most have not resulted in more liberty they have resulted in less liberty. The originator calls to have the complainers shut up! They are beaten into submission some are gang raped. The originator stays in a “safe” country and keeps his or her assets safe with hard assets like gold and a basket of international currencies. Then when the uprising inevitably kill thousands and results in less liberty, is this originator any less guilty… or more?
How about the originator who has personal knowledge that anti capitalist philosophies such as Communism result in famine, tyranny, despotism and an ever diminishing standard of living, researched the subject to find there were no examples in history where communism resulted in prosperity, then convinced a powerful Elite it was a good idea to force communism, not on the people of one country or nation only, but upon the entire World. Some people would complain that this path led to universal poverty. The originator calls for the complainer to be shut up! Calls the complainer selfish, greedy and counter-revolutionary. His or her followers call the complainer a kook, insane, and dangerous. The complainers are effectively suppressed and ignored. When the World goes out on the thin ice, that is communism, in a one great World government… is the person or group of people, as guilty, for the resulting deaths through famine, torture, political suppression, maintenance of oligarchy, and protection of the Elite… or more guilty?
In every one of these examples we have an originator and the victims. In each case the victims died and in each case the originator had foreknowledge and therefore was guilty for all the deaths…Is the perpetrator evil or good? In the first and second examples the perpetrator would be hunted down, arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to jail and possibly executed. In the third example the perpetrator would be reviled in some circles but have no meaningful negative consequences in his or her life. In the fourth example the perpetrator would be set up as the king of the World. But under a different name… President (for life), Great Leader, Prime Minister, or by whatever name he or she would go by, but they will be, in fact, Caesar.
Now that we have a template lets do a thought experiment… Take a person who urges a group of people to change the borders of their nation, such that it guarantees the extermination of that people, by neighbors who daily say genocide is their goal. Then, predictably, the people are exterminated. Is the originator guilty of genocide? What if he has a Nobel Prize? And what does that say about what the Nobel Prize will have become?
In any case, it is not relevant how long the chain of event, the predictable outcome is what determines guilt. As in the case of the drunken driver not being prosecuted for intentions but for actions and probable outcomes…
