Let's discuss the ethics of political violence?

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.