Ben No.3 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Can state violence against a) other states b) other states people c) it's own people sometimes be justified, and if so, when? Can individual violence (outside of any form of self defence) against a) other individuals b) the state b) the state of other people sometimes be justified, and if so when? I'm interested. Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Violence is the answer. It's just the question that differs. 3 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azdeus Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Depends on if you win or not, the victor writes the history books after all. *Sagely nod* 2 Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard Dog Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Can state violence againsta) other states: Yes, in defense of citizens, territory, owned resources or property, or all the same of allied states from imminent harm.b) other states people. No. Even in a state of war efforts are made to limit the casualties of non-combatants. c) it's own people: Only in the last extreme in the defense of the lives of other citizens or the lives of agents of the state while executing lawful actions. Can individual violence (outside of any form of self defence) againsta) other individuals: Outside of the last defense of life, limb, or property of yourself or another? No.b) the state: Meaning insurrection? Yes, but only if the state has forsaken its laws, the trust of it's citizens or initiated unlawful violence against the citizens.b) the state of other people: No. On the point of insurrection I firmly believe a citizenry that is able to freely arm itself and is capable of armed insurrection is far less likely to ever have to do so. Disarming citizens has historically been the first step of every would be tyrant. To quote George Washington "And armed man is a citizen. An unarmed one is a subject". I 100% support the right of law abiding citizens to buy, sell, and own firearms with minimal interference from the government and I 100% support laws such as Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hynkel Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 This : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence The state of law, as opposed to the state of nature, requires people to forfeit any use of force and rely on the State to settle disputes. Democracy differs from authoritarianism on how people have their say on the making of laws, but not on whether they ought to obey them. This line of thinking is, with a few variations, common to the majority of western ideologies. In Europe, it's mostly opposed by far-left movements of anarchist inspiration. In the U.S, opposition to the state of law is embodied by right-wing, anarcho-capitalist movements (libertarianism). It's directly related to the nation's history and its people's relationship with Great Britain, natives or the federal State. All States exert violence against their own people because all law enforcement IS violence. If you take what's not yours, if you punch someone, if you wander around school naked, the State will use force to have you deprived of your liberty for some time. Taxes are violence too. It's okay to question the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, but beware of where you're heading. There's a fine line between granting the right to defend yourself and having your kids shot because they fetched a ball at the wrong place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben No.3 Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 Can state violence against a) other states: Yes, in defense of citizens, territory, owned resources or property, or all the same of allied states from imminent harm. b) other states people. No. Even in a state of war efforts are made to limit the casualties of non-combatants. c) it's own people: Only in the last extreme in the defense of the lives of other citizens or the lives of agents of the state while executing lawful actions. Can individual violence (outside of any form of self defence) against a) other individuals: Outside of the last defense of life, limb, or property of yourself or another? No. b) the state: Meaning insurrection? Yes, but only if the state has forsaken its laws, the trust of it's citizens or initiated unlawful violence against the citizens. b) the state of other people: No. On the point of insurrection I firmly believe a citizenry that is able to freely arm itself and is capable of armed insurrection is far less likely to ever have to do so. Disarming citizens has historically been the first step of every would be tyrant. To quote George Washington "And armed man is a citizen. An unarmed one is a subject". I 100% support the right of law abiding citizens to buy, sell, and own firearms with minimal interference from the government and I 100% support laws such as Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine. Crazy stuff: I'm starting to have sympathies towards the idea of gun ownership. I just don't know yet how to stop the shootings Everybody knows the deal is rotten Old Black Joe's still pickin' cotton For your ribbons and bows And everybody knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Can state violence against a) other states: Yes, in defense of citizens, territory, owned resources or property, or all the same of allied states from imminent harm. b) other states people. No. Even in a state of war efforts are made to limit the casualties of non-combatants. c) it's own people: Only in the last extreme in the defense of the lives of other citizens or the lives of agents of the state while executing lawful actions. Can individual violence (outside of any form of self defence) against a) other individuals: Outside of the last defense of life, limb, or property of yourself or another? No. b) the state: Meaning insurrection? Yes, but only if the state has forsaken its laws, the trust of it's citizens or initiated unlawful violence against the citizens. b) the state of other people: No. On the point of insurrection I firmly believe a citizenry that is able to freely arm itself and is capable of armed insurrection is far less likely to ever have to do so. Disarming citizens has historically been the first step of every would be tyrant. To quote George Washington "And armed man is a citizen. An unarmed one is a subject". I 100% support the right of law abiding citizens to buy, sell, and own firearms with minimal interference from the government and I 100% support laws such as Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine. Crazy stuff: I'm starting to have sympathies towards the idea of gun ownership. I just don't know yet how to stop the shootings Don't live an a liberal state with tough gun laws seems to be a good starting point. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heijoushin Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Well now, like with many other morale issues, there’s always a discrepancy between what’s best for the individual, and what’s best for the group as a whole. If you’re thinking about what’s best for an individual, I don’t think you can ever justify violence (outside of self-defense). I mean, possible results include death or life-long injury, right? Definitely to be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, if you’re thinking about what’s best for the group, you can always justify violence in the sense that it will make things better long-term (by overthrowing a tyrant or whatever). This is the logic that wars are built on after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valsuelm Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Can state violence against a) other states b) other states people c) it's own people sometimes be justified, and if so, when? Can individual violence (outside of any form of self defence) against a) other individuals b) the state b) the state of other people sometimes be justified, and if so when? I'm interested. Justifiability is very subjective. There is absolutely nothing that isn't potentially justifiable to someone, while at the same time be unjustifiable to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Well now, like with many other morale issues, there’s always a discrepancy between what’s best for the individual, and what’s best for the group as a whole. If you’re thinking about what’s best for an individual, I don’t think you can ever justify violence (outside of self-defense). I mean, possible results include death or life-long injury, right? Definitely to be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, if you’re thinking about what’s best for the group, you can always justify violence in the sense that it will make things better long-term (by overthrowing a tyrant or whatever). This is the logic that wars are built on after all. Passivity might just lead to both death or life long injury (either external or internal). The flight attitude that a lot of "pacifists" seem to take seems to rely on them somehow being able to move away from violence or to let others do violence on their behalf. Which is why I'm bothered why their misguided belief that it somehow more moral to surrender to the whims of others rather than to do for oneself. Even more when I know that the only reason that modern liberals regurgitate the idea of pacifism is because of the counter culture movements of the late 60's and 70's, when drug addled musicians began to embrace eastern philosophies. Considering that the drug usage and the latent passivity was already present on the Mod music scene, non violence just provided already passive individuals with a mean to justify their actions with a moral construct. Meaning that it just helps excuse the lack of capacity for any type of violence; either positive or negative, outside of a mob situation. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heijoushin Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) Passivity might just lead to both death or life long injury (either external or internal). The flight attitude that a lot of "pacifists" seem to take seems to rely on them somehow being able to move away from violence or to let others do violence on their behalf. Which is why I'm bothered why their misguided belief that it somehow more moral to surrender to the whims of others rather than to do for oneself. Even more when I know that the only reason that modern liberals regurgitate the idea of pacifism is because of the counter culture movements of the late 60's and 70's, when drug addled musicians began to embrace eastern philosophies. Considering that the drug usage and the latent passivity was already present on the Mod music scene, non violence just provided already passive individuals with a mean to justify their actions with a moral construct. Meaning that it just helps excuse the lack of capacity for any type of violence; either positive or negative, outside of a mob situation. As someone who has lived in Asia for 7 years, I find the idea that eastern people are all philosophical and Zen (as hippies believed in the 70s) to be very amusing. The average eastern guy/gal is just as screwed up as the average western one. Still, that kind of Eastern worship brought us lots of video games and movies with katanas and kung fu monks, so who's complaining? Anyways, if there's an abusive person in your life, the best thing you can do is to leave and cut all ties. In other words, flight. I would say that's sensible. But as you say, that's not always possible. In which case, the main options remaining are to passively submit or to fight back. None of it is particularly moral, just different survival strategies. Edited April 13, 2017 by Heijoushin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Having flashbacks to Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. "My parents always said that violence doesn't solve anything." "Really? I wonder what the city fathers of Hiroshima would say about that." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Can state violence against a) other states b) other states people c) it's own people sometimes be justified, and if so, when? Can individual violence (outside of any form of self defence) against a) other individuals b) the state b) the state of other people sometimes be justified, and if so when? I'm interested. Bennie its very simple Can state violence against a) other states : Yes in times of war b) other states people : Yes in times of UNSC sanctioned military missions for example c) it's own people: Yes when a country faces insurrection or some internal group tries to overthrow a legitimate government illegally. For example some kind of Communist protest, you immediately arrest people and crush the uprising ruthlessly Can individual violence (outside of any form of self defence) against a) other individuals : Depends, you may discovery a family member has been the victim of abuse and cant control yourself b) the state : No unless its an illegal government b) the state of other people : No you as individual need to follow the law and not break the law of other countries, you have less rights or protection if you do this sometimes be justified, and if so when? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now