When is violence acceptable?

[Dr.Traveler]

You're asking for a simple answer to a difficult question.

Never asked for a simple answer. I know it's a difficult question. I'd just like to see why some people are so quick to condemn violence on the other side of the aisle and not their side. What makes it acceptable in one case and condemnable in another. I want people to think about this. Seriously think about this.

I know I have been. Ever since my recent studies on Gandhi I've been thinking about this alot.

Ghandi's approach (Non-violence) works if you can appeal to the better nature of your oppressors, or to the better natures of those that can influence your oppressors. Non-violent or Passive resistance is not always an option sadly.

For example, the Nazi's would have happily sent any passive or non-violent protestors right to the Camps and let the Camps solve the problem. You'd have likely influenced no one, as the Nazi's controlled all aspects of daily communication, and the Nazi's had no "better natures" to appeal to.

I do think that Passive or Non-violent resistance could probably be the path to victory in the Middle East for the Palestinians though, if they had taken that route instead of the path of violence. Israel depends on allies that would have quickly abandoned it once the plight of the Palestinians were known, especially if the Palestinians hadn't resorted to violence. As is, every violent action by the Palestinians strengthens Israel's hand just a bit more when it comes to dealing with them.

 

[uscitizen]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

In defense from others performing violence against you or yours.
imho that is about the only time. Humans should be able to work everything else out without violence. esp in the USA.
Some other countries not so much.

edit: or to remove a serious threat of violence against you or yours.
For instance a guy told me once he intended to kill me. To which I replied by pulling a gun on him and asking him why I should not just go ahead and kill him, that I did not like having to watch over my shoulder.
he recanted very quickly and I never saw him again.

 

[loosecannon]

There are two correct answers to the question asked:

1) after the fact when the victors get to make the new rules

2) when the state adopts violence, as states always claim a monopoly on the use of force.

 

[LiberalNut]

Does that mean Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for suggesting that there were times it was acceptable?

Jefferson is one of the most misquoted men that ever lived. That said, later in life, after seeing the horrors of the French Revolution, he retracted and denounced his earlier rhetoric regarding the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

I suppose it was since all the Founders were committing Treason against the crown.

What they were doing was clearly treason and all who signed the Declaration knew it. The point is however that they had no other recourse. They couldn't vote in Paliament. they didn't have representatives.

 

[ConservativeDad]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Organized labor, The Black Panthers, Jeremiah Wright. Strange, that. For someone who marches in lockstep with Obama, you seem to advocating the execution of most of his Christmas list.

 

[JBeukema]

later in life, after seeing the horrors of the French Revolution, he retracted and denounced his earlier rhetoric regarding the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

I suppose it was since all the Founders were committing Treason against the crown.

Can you site that, please?

 

[uscitizen]

Does that mean Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for suggesting that there were times it was acceptable?

Jefferson is one of the most misquoted men that ever lived. That said, later in life, after seeing the horrors of the French Revolution, he retracted and denounced his earlier rhetoric regarding the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots.

I suppose it was since all the Founders were committing Treason against the crown.

What they were doing was clearly treason and all who signed the Declaration knew it. The point is however that they had no other recourse. They couldn't vote in Paliament. they didn't have representatives.

They did have another choice, they just chose to change things.

One almost always has a choice.
Like when bush told us you are either with us or for the terrorists.
I chose neither of his offered choices.

 

[JBeukema]

Treason is not a bad thing.

 

[rightwinger]

Treason is not a bad thing.

Neither is Tar and Feathers

 

[goldcatt]

Self-defense. Repelling invasion. Defense of those who cannot defend themselves.

Otherwise? I can't think of any violence I would feel justified in engaging in.

 

[loosecannon]

Self-defense. Repelling invasion. Defense of those who cannot defend themselves.

Otherwise? I can't think of any violence I would feel justified in engaging in.

But you support the violence of state actors each and every day.

 

[goldcatt]

Self-defense. Repelling invasion. Defense of those who cannot defend themselves.

Otherwise? I can't think of any violence I would feel justified in engaging in.

But you support the violence of state actors each and every day.

You have no idea what I do or do not support, or why. Care to try again, oh amazing Kreskin?

 

[uscitizen]

What/who are state actors?

 

[Two Thumbs]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

In defense of self or others.

 

[goldcatt]

What/who are state actors?

I think he's talking about law enforcement. But who knows? These black helicopter types get a little obscure sometimes.

Care to explain, loosecannon?

 

[Missourian]

In response to a different thread on this subject, I picked up a copy of "Inside War: the guerrilla conflct in Missouri during the American Civil War" by Professor Michael Fellman.

If you would like a glimpse of what America would be like during an internal rebellion among civilians in an enviroment where there has been a total societal breakdown and a collapse of all forms of what we think of as law and order, I highly recommend this book...I am only halfway through chapter 3 and I am already absolutely mortified.

My conclusion is we are currently light years away from any rationalization of armed rebellion.

By light years I mean unless we are under marshal law, the Congress has been disbanded, there has been a military coup, or concentration camps are being filled with political dissidents, no one should be discussing any armed action.

 

[JBeukema]

People keep talking about the State.

What is the State?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

In response to a different thread on this subject, I picked up a copy of "Inside War: the guerrilla conflct in Missouri during the American Civil War" by Professor Michael Fellman.

If you would like a glimpse of what America would be like during an internal rebellion among civilians in an enviroment where there has been a total societal breakdown and a collapse of all forms of what we think of as law and order, I highly recommend this book...I am only halfway through chapter 3 and I am already absolutely mortified.

My conclusion is we are currently light years away from any rationalization of armed rebellion.

By light years I mean unless we are under marshal law, the Congress has been disbanded, there has been a military coup, or concentration camps are being filled with political dissidents, no one should be discussing any armed action.

I'll have to look at that. But I know that things got pretty bad during the "Bloody Kansas" outbreak and during the Mormon Wars, two topics that modern Americans seem largely ignorant of.

 

[BlindBoo]

Apparently when ever the President, Congress, and the MSM media decide it is. Case in point, the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

70% of Americans thought that Saddam was supporting al Queda in the 9-11 attacks.

 

[goldcatt]

People keep talking about the State.

What is the State?

The sovereign.