Let's discuss the ethics of political violence?

Can a single act of violence serve as a "moral prophylactic" against the collapse of a state, or does the act itself signify that the collapse has already occurred? The attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, forces a confrontation with the philosophical tradition of **tyrannicide**—the killing of a tyrant for the common good—and whether such a framework can ever be applied within a functioning, albeit polarized, democracy. ## The Argument from Pre-emptive Self-Defense The ethical defense for such an act typically rests on a radical utilitarian calculus. If an actor believes a political figure represents an existential threat to the constitutional order or the lives of marginalized groups, they may argue that the "lesser evil" is the elimination of that individual. This mirrors the [Just War Theory](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/) requirement of "just cause," where violence is framed as a pre-emptive defense against future harm. From this perspective, the act is not seen as murder but as an extra-legal correction. Proponents of this view might point to historical justifications found in the 16th-century treatise *Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos*, which argues that when legal channels are captured or failing, the "right of resistance" reverts to the people. ## The Epistemic Problem and Thomas Aquinas The primary ethical counter-argument centers on **epistemic arrogance**: the idea that a single individual cannot possess the moral certainty or the wisdom to override the collective will of a democratic electorate. St. Thomas Aquinas, in *De Regimine Principum*, warned against private individuals attempting tyrannicide, noting that such actions are more often born of pride or delusion than a genuine pursuit of justice. > "It would be dangerous for the community and its rulers if individuals were allowed to attempt the life of their rulers, even if these were tyrants; for as a rule it is not the well-disposed, but the wicked who most frequently make such attempts." > — [Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship](https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/DeRegimine.htm) Aquinas argues that unauthorized violence usually results in a worse tyrant than the one deposed, as the state descends into chaos or the successor enacts even more repressive measures in the name of security. ## The Failure of "Successor Logic" In political philosophy, the "Successor Logic" suggests that political violence is ethically and practically flawed because it fails to address the underlying social conditions that produced the leader in the first place. If Donald Trump is viewed as a symptom of systemic populist grievance rather than its sole cause, then his removal through violence does not "solve" the ethical dilemma. Instead, it transforms a political opponent into a martyr, potentially radicalizing millions and accelerating the very civil strife the act claimed to prevent. ## The Social Contract and Democratic Pluralism Ultimately, the ethics of political violence in this context collide with the [Social Contract](https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract). In a pluralistic society, the ethical "good" is defined by the process of deliberation and voting, not by the individual's moral intuition. To argue that the July 13th attempt was ethical is to argue that the democratic process is already dead—a self-fulfilling prophecy that replaces *logos* (reasoned speech) with *bia* (force), thereby destroying the only mechanism capable of resolving conflict without bloodshed.

The comparison between an attempt on a presidential candidate and violence directed at an influential media figure like Charlie Kirk—who, unlike the subject of the July 13th attempt, is a private citizen—shifts the ethical debate from **tyrannicide** to the targeting of **ideological architects**. While the attack on Donald Trump targets a figure seeking *imperium* (legal state power), violence against an influencer targets *auctoritas* (social or moral influence). This distinction is critical for understanding the evolving landscape of political violence. ## The Sovereign vs. The Sophist In classical political philosophy, the "tyrant" is a specific category: a ruler who has usurped power or uses it against the common good. Because Charlie Kirk holds no formal office and commands no state police or military, he cannot be a "tyrant" in the Aristotelian or Thomistic sense. Instead, targeting such a figure moves the act into the realm of **ideological eradication**. If the July 13th attempt was an attack on a potential head of state, an attack on an influencer is an attack on the "marketplace of ideas" itself. This reflects a transition from *political* conflict to what [Carl Schmitt](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/) described as the "Total Enemy" distinction, where the opponent is no longer a legal adversary but an existential threat that must be physically uprooted from civil society. ## The Theory of the Partisan To understand this shift, we can look to Schmitt’s [Theory of the Partisan](https://archive.org/details/TheoryOfThePartisan), which explores how conflict moves beyond traditional battlefields. In this framework, the modern "partisan" (or ideologue) lacks a uniform but becomes a legitimate target in the eyes of an extremist because they provide the intellectual "fuel" for the state’s actions. > "The partisan is the one who does not wear a uniform, and for that reason, he is a particularly dangerous figure... he remains in the realm of the political, even if he operates outside the legal norms of the state." > — Carl Schmitt, *The Theory of the Partisan* (1963) By targeting a civilian "agitator," the perpetrator argues that the boundary between the state and the speaker has dissolved. This logic suggests that words are equivalent to physical violence (the "speech as violence" trope), thereby justifying physical violence as a "counter-measure." ## Categorical Differences in Ethical Risks While the Foundation explored the "Successor Logic" regarding state leaders, the targeting of influencers introduces unique social pathologies: 1. **The Martyrdom of Ideas:** Unlike a politician whose policies can be reversed by a successor, an ideologue’s influence often survives their death through the "sanctification" of their rhetoric. Violence against a speaker validates their claim of being "suppressed by the system." 2. **The Erasure of Civil Society:** In [Liberalism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/), a sharp line exists between state coercion and private persuasion. To apply the ethics of tyrannicide to a private citizen is to destroy the concept of **Civil Society**—the space where conflict is resolved through discourse rather than decree. 3. **Horizontal vs. Vertical Violence:** Tyrannicide is "vertical"—the bottom attacking the top. Targeting an influencer is "horizontal"—one segment of the citizenry attacking another. This leads not to a change in government, but to a collapse into communal or sectarian strife. Ultimately, if the July 13th attempt was a gamble on the future of the American Executive, violence against figures like Kirk is a gamble on the possibility of shared public reason. It asserts that some ideas are so dangerous that the person holding the microphone must be treated as if they held the sword.