This is a difficult subject to touch on. Not because it's not logical, but because we've all learned (or most of us anyway) that we shouldn't use violence to solve problems. What I wish to put to you that it can be a legitimate tool, it can solve problems and that it is misplaced by being controlled by a minority.
First of all, let me get a few things straight, so there are no hard feelings.
* I do not think violence is the best instrument in the majority of situations.
* I, myself, am not a violent person.
* I believe that everybody is equal and that borders should not exist.
You, me and most other people are told from day one that we shouldn't be violent.
"Don't hit your brother."
"Don't slap her."
"Road rage is negative." etc. etc. etc.
The government tells us that violence is bad. It is constantly shown in a negative light. Except when it suits them!
This is a very important distinction to make:
She brutally killed her husband of 10 years and deservedly received 15 years imprisonment.
He killed someone during a robbery.
She killed her children by drowning them.
Football hooligans fought each other at last Saturday's match.
Anti-war protestors fought pitched battles with police yesterday.
200 civilians died in a city last week, due to terrorist bombing
Notice, and be honest, that all these 'daily' attitudes sound negative. Violence is portrayed as being bad. No matter what the circumstance.
But, when it comes to say leading a war on Iraq we hear the same leaders who condemn this very violence saying things like: "Diplomacy without the threat of violence and the will to use it is meaningless." - Tony Blair -
And how often have you heard about the war on terrorism, and it is not so negative.
More often than not You'll receive an explanation along the lines of: "We have to protect our democratic freedoms." or "We have to get them, before they get us."
Fair enough.
What about my democratic freedom though?
Let's test some boundaries!
Say someone is mugging you. Can you use violence to stop them? Can you kill them?
Say someone is trying to drive you off the road. He succeeds. Stops beside you and starts shouting abuse at you. Can you kill him?
Say this same person stops beside you, gets out the car and tries to drag you out of it. Can you kill him?
Say you come home and some man is raping your 9 year old daughter. Can you kill him?
Probably, as in my case, each example will lead to a more violent reaction. Getting mugged at knife point is humiliating. It generally will make you feel like taking revenge, but will generally lead to you filing a complaint by the police and accepting that it's life.
Watching your daughter being raped is not only humiliating for you and more so for her, it is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to someone and the chances of you flipping out and losing control are far higher.
When can you be blamed?
Most laws say that you can use a minimum level of violence to solve a situation. Many law courts will jail you for killing a mugger. Many law courts will give you 12 months psychiatric treatment for killing a rapist, caught in the act.
Please take not: Humiliation and revenge. Very important feelings.
What would have to happen for you to use violence to kill someone?
Can you imagine that different situations will lead to different reactions? It is thus conceivable that for everyone (besides my father who’s a pacifist&hellip😉 there’s a certain point at which violence will become a legitimate tool. A point where someone will resort to violence. Some people will use it faster than others.
Have you noticed that governments are generally quick in condemning individual violence, but State sponsored violence is generally sold to you as acceptable?
Say I kill my neighbour. I was meaning to kill his dog which keeps biting my child, but when I threw the hammer it hit him instead of the dog and killed him. I’d be done for manslaughter. Do you think this is right?
Say a government means to kill 10 enemy soldiers, but ends up bombing a village instead. Is this manslaughter or collateral damage?
Doesn’t make a difference? Manslaughter carries a prison sentence and collateral damage is collateral damage.
Another example:
3 policemen were killed at a demonstration which turned violent last night. 20 demonstrators were arrested.
Or
3 demonstrators were killed when a demonstration turned violent last night. 10 policemen were injured and 20 demonstrators were arrested.
What do you think? Both just as bad? Or does the first example have a more negative feel to it? Who is right and wrong in both?
Basically and objectively you can’t tell. But, you will, probably, have an opinion.
Every government is a minority. We can discuss the merits of democracy until the cows come home, but no matter how you look at it, every government (well…99% of them. I do believe Saddam had a 97% backing from his people in the last election he held…Okay, okay…100% of governments….) are voted on by a minority of the population and make decisions as a minority of the people of a nation.
Have you ever heard of rationalism? Championed by Ayn Rand? Well, in this theory she states that governments have the monopoly to use violence.
Every so often you may hear references to this. More often you will see clear cut examples of this. Like many of the examples I’ve already given.
Is it right though?
Say you kill a policeman for you find he’s oppressing you during a demonstration.
Right or wrong?
Say a policeman kills you because you were undermining his authority during a demonstration.
Right or wrong?
Say you kill a policeman who’s beating you with his stick.
Right or wrong?
Say a policeman kills you because you’re beating him with a stick.
Right or wrong.
Say you kill Saddam Hussein because he slaughtered your family.
Right or wrong.
Say you kill Tony Blair because he killed your family in a bombing raid.
Right or wrong.
Hopefully you’ll see where this is heading. Every individual will judge a situation differently. Some will judge it meriting violence and some will not. Can you honestly say that one is right and one is wrong.
My father says it is all wrong. He says that violence is never the solution. I personally think there are certain situations he’s never been in. I wonder if he saw my sister being raped if his pacifism would stay strong.
I can however, until the situation (and may it NEVER happen to anyone) occurs which proves him wrong, not call him a hypocrite. He states that killing is never good.
Governments may state the same, but they don’t behave in that manner. (Not just governments, but just follow the media. They’re about as objective as Ian Paisley at a party meeting at an orange march.
Either there are reasons which are just for killing. Or there are none.
If you were raping my ten year old daughter. I would kill you. I have reasons I can think of which would push me over the edge and make me use violence to solve the situation.
I can think of reasons for using violence out of revenge as well. Can you?
What about prison and the death penalty. That’s revenge. Isn’t it?
The next question which can be asked is: “Does violence solve a situation?”
Does killing a rapist make the rape any less?
Does the killing of civilians create a safer home land?
Does the destroying of an army make you loved?
If you are anything like me, you’ll probably say no. So, we can make a distinction between the justification for violence and the usefulness of it.
What about these situations:
Someone is going to rape your daughter and you kill him before hand.
Someone keeps bullying you. You kill him.
An army is destroying your cities and you destroy it.
If you are anything like me, you’ll probably sat that violence in these situations actually does serve to better the situation you are in. The rape doesn’t happen, the bullying stops and the army stops destroying you.
So, although violence is not always useful, it can be useful. In the right circumstances.
Take this example:
A boy throws milk over you.
A boy throws milk over you again.
A boy throws milk over you again and laughs.
A boy throws milk over you again and again and laughs and laughs.
At which point does this become humiliating? At which point does it turn from accident to intention? At which point is it bullying? At which point would you use violence to stop it?
What if it is the government that is doing the milk throwing?
And so I conclude (because I’m drunk at this moment in time and can’t focus any longer) that:
* There are reasons when using violence is justifiable.
* There are moments when using violence can solve solutions.
* Violence should not be in the hands of the government alone.
I certainly hope this made sense. It did before my third beer. Or fourth vodka. Or somewhere in between.
I initially removed this post because of the horrific scenes from Iraq I saw on the news this evening. Then I decided to post it anyway. The reason being that it makes no difference to the argument and if the media showed us the results of every incident of war, then this would be just one of many.
Originally posted by shavixmirGolly I can't believe I'm saying this but this was actually well written and I never agree with shavixmir. I need another beer.:'(
This is a difficult subject to touch on. Not because it's not logical, but because we've all learned (or most of us anyway) that we shouldn't use violence to solve problems. What I wish to put to you that it can be a legitimate tool, it can solve problems and that it is misplaced by being controlled by a minority.
First of all, let me get a few thin ...[text shortened]... e media showed us the results of every incident of war, then this would be just one of many.[/i]
Originally posted by bbarrYou are right.
I think you mean objectivism, rather than rationalism. Ayn Rand is not a rationalist, at least in her ethical ramblings.
Her teachings are called objectivism, but one of the foundations of her argument is that human beings are rational beings which make rational decisions.
I should have been more clear.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou appear to equate violence solely with killing. What's wrong with giving someone a good smack in the chops?
This is a difficult subject to touch on. Not because it's not logical, but because we've all learned (or most of us anyway) that we shouldn't use violence to solve problems. What I wish to put to you that it can be a legitimate tool, it can solve problems and that it is misplaced by being controlled by a minority.
First of all, let me get a few thin ...[text shortened]... e media showed us the results of every incident of war, then this would be just one of many.[/i]
Seriously, I'm pretty set against killing someone unless there is, or appears to be no alternative. Even if someone is threatening to kill someone, or is raping my sister or whatever, if they can be stopped by a few punches in the face, or whatever (and they usually can be, particularly here in the UK, no guns), then that's the way I'm going.
I also don't believe in revenge attacks. Why bother? How is anyone going to benefit? You may feel better for a bit, but in the long run you've gained nothing (and may even have lost a bit if it turns out that he's tougher than he looks).
Choosing violence is choosing the ways of war.
As you live in the Netherlands you are probably aware of the fact that more and more people are being threatened in our country with violence, arson and even death. Politicians from left to right, philosophers in the Islam debate, thinkers who belong to a thinktank, businessmen in general, factory farmers, people in the business of breeding certain animals (for fur, research etc.), researchers themselves, etc, etc. ... there is more and more extreme violence in schools, at work and in the streets. In the Netherlands they refer to that kind of violence as "zinloos geweld", "senseless violence". The list goes on and on ....
If more and more people from the extreme left via the center to the extreme right become advocates of violence of some sort in order to solve social and or personal problems, we will inevitably end up in a society that will be extremely violent. I'm an advocate of refraining from violence unless in extreme circumstances, such as the brutal occupation by a foreign power from 1940-1945.
The far left and the far right are always tempted to use violence in some sort of way. The secular centre has joined them recently in the Netherlands and Belgium by choosing the means of violence in order to solve personal problems, the so called Culture of Death.
The political and social situation in the Netherlands is becoming more and more problematic. Philosophers choose to stop debating certain issues because they are being threatened. Of course everybody has heard of the Pim Fortuyn murder. Politicians and businessmen are being forced to protect themselves with bodyguards. If philosophers want to debate controversial issues they now have to protect themselves in the future the same way I'm afraid. The freedom of speach is at stake ... and much more .......
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHolland is a great example of why people are turning to violence.
Choosing violence is choosing the ways of war.
As you live in the Netherlands you are probably aware of the fact that more and more people are being threatened in our country with violence, arson and even death. Politicians from left to right, philosophers in the Islam debate, thinkers who belong to a thinktank, businessmen in general, factory farmers, p ...[text shortened]... future the same way I'm afraid. The freedom of speach is at stake ... and much more .......
.
What's the Dutch government doing?
They've put up taxes on everything. They've lowered the spendable income and they're forcing people into hundreds of thousands of euros of debt by giving them precious little choice but to buy a house (or rent a house from a bank, to put it another way).
What have the Dutch people received in return?
Better schools? No.
Better roads? No.
Better public transport? No.
They have received the honour of participating in the war on terror by flying over 500 missions (this was last year May, God knows how many missions the Dutch airforce have flown by now) over Afghanistan. And believe me, they're not taking scenery pictures.
They are about to receive deportation camps for refugees.
The most a-social laws against immigrants in the whole of Europe. Yup, they've received that too.
Oh. And a ban on smoking in public places.
What if you disagree with all this? What if you think this is agressive towards you? You have to pay more money for rich people (multi-nationals and politicians) to do what they like.
Look at the Dutch queen. She receives 7.000.000 euros per year from the tax-payer as income. She can deduct tons more, she travels for free and doesn't have to foot hotel bills.
She also is one of the largest share holders in SHELL petrol.
However, I know a woman who's a manic despressive, can't hold a job and has to raise three children on her own. She gets 8.000 euros a year. They took away her couch last week. They're probably going to take away her children as well.
This form of non-violent agression, which no one can do anything about, creates violence in society.
It's all very well saying that violence is ruining society, but it's the society we're allowing to be created which makes people turn violent.
My point is that you can't allow governments to get away with this. They can be violent, but you can't. It doesn't work. It can't work. And proof of the pudding is in the tasting.
Originally posted by shavixmir
Holland is a great example of why people are turning to violence.
What's the Dutch government doing?
They've put up taxes on everything. They've lowered the spendable income and they're forcing people into hundreds of thousands of euros of debt by giving them precious little choice but to buy a house (or rent a house from a bank, to put it another ...[text shortened]... but you can't. It doesn't work. It can't work. And proof of the pudding is in the tasting.
Do you and your political friends are discussing the possibilities of using violence in the political battle ?
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI can't speak for my friends, but I certainly am willing to use violence in certain circumstances.
Do you and your political friends are discussing the possibilities of using violence in the political battle ?
.
For instance: a simple demonstration.
What constantly happens is that the police corner the demonstrators, the police are well armed and if you don't do what they say, you get beaten.
I for one see absolutely no problem in planning a trap and taking their weapons from them. With a minimum amount of force, obviously. But then again, should they not wish to hand their weapons over, I have no problem in beating them with base-ball bats. Let's just say: "One good turn deserves another."
As for using violence to overthrow a government (instead of self protection as in the previous example), I wouldn't do that.
Not because I don't think I could create a better society, but because I believe people to be too stupid to start a new. It reminds me of a song by The Who: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
The only way to get people to see the big picture is by means of education.
I'm not talking education as in the school system that we have now (where you are taught to be a method of production), but by teaching children philosophy, chess, maths, politics and proper history (not the off-by-heart learning of which queen ruled in which era).
I can't see violence leading to this new eduction, but to be perfectly honest, I don't see anything else leading to it either.
That's why I drink beer, use soft drugs and ignore people as best I can. 😉
your examples each involve a violent situation, the violence you endorse is only a lesser violence such that it couteracts that initial violence.
if this is you whole argument then you seem to be arguing against violence.
can you see a situation where you could legitimately initiate or escalate the violence? can you even endorse an equal level of violence? i doubt it.
to predict a style of argument you might try:
a classroom full of children will die in a schoolroom fire if the foolish teacher is in control, so you take control and save the children (you must kill the teacher).
i would see the teacher's error as a violence by incompetence/negligence against many kids, and killing the teacher as a lesser violence.
Originally posted by shavixmir1. Using violence is not a very smart thing to do. Since the police have a monopoly on using violence, you will always loose ... unless ?
I can't speak for my friends, but I certainly am willing to use violence in certain circumstances.
For instance: a simple demonstration.
What constantly happens is that the police corner the demonstrators, the police are well armed ...[text shortened]... y I drink beer, use soft drugs and ignore people as best I can. 😉
2.If you take things into your own hand, others might just do the same ( your opponents on the other end of the political spectrum).
3. What are you trying to achieve by using violence ? I mean, say you manage to disarm the police, which is not an easy job by the way, what is next ? You go home and drink a cup of coffee ? .... or what ?
.
In other words what's the plan wherein violence has its place ?