> you’re lacking both in imagination and historical knowledge. Apparently, but the real problem is you don't actually give us an example, then I wouldn't need

> you’re lacking both in imagination and historical knowledge. Apparently, but the real problem is you don't actually give us an example, then I wouldn't need those elusive skills. It's hard to get to the point without something concrete. Besides the moral question of killing someone doing their job due to an unjust law, there are the practical matters. If you kill one person, there are others who do the same job. Governments hire thousands of people. There is the question of subjectivity. If you think that's justifiable, what about if you're delusional or just wrong? Once you cross that moral line you're killing people just because you think But maybe you're talking about the government coming to kill you and acting in self defence. This definitely happens, but it has practical issues. We've seen black people more or less executed by police more than once. Should black people shoot police defensively? At what point do they know it's justified? What if they're just scared and over-reacting? Maybe you're talking about something broader, then that's armed rebellion, or civil war. That may be justified, and doesn't have the subjectivity so much, but then you're up against an enemy that is well armed. How are you going to get your hands on jets, tanks and nukes? Maybe you don't present an example because you don't have one. You then just have an amorphous concept that sounds good in theory but makes no sense. Thus my comments and the danger of actually being one of those people you mention.