Is violence justified?

[soap box]

All votes will be seen. You can see the results before voting, You may change your vote.
Please be so good as to explain, or just leave us a note, if you vote 'other' .
At the moment, I intend to be mostly hands-off, I don't intend to argue much. It's more fun if folks give some specific examples of why they chose the option they did.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, otherwise the US would not exist.

 

[neil]

Define violent.

Do you consider the American & French revolutions to be examples of justified violence against the government?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yes, otherwise the US would not exist.

It probably still would exist. I just would not have started when it did. The British Empire was going to fall apart anyway. Canada exists, Australia exists and so on.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Yes, obviously. A absolutest "no" stance on this question is insane.

To show why I'll use an extreme example, but it cuts right to the point.

In Nazi Germany (I know I know, Godwins law) would you condemn the Jews or other persecuted minorities violently rioting? Assassinating government officials? Bombing SS or police buildings? Killing people with Nazi armbands in the street? Would you have told them they should "just peacefully protest their government "?

If you believe a government truly has a monopoly on moral violence then that's an incredibly authoritarian position in my opinion.

 

[neil]

It probably still would exist. I just would not have started when it did. The British Empire was going to fall apart anyway. Canada exists, Australia exists and so on.

Canada, Australia, and so on are still part of the British Empire.

 

[bongsaway]

All votes will be seen. You can see the results before voting, You may change your vote.
Please be so good as to explain, or just leave us a note, if you vote 'other' .
At the moment, I intend to be mostly hands-off, I don't intend to argue much. It's more fun if folks give some specific examples of why they chose the option they did.

Yes, god gave us free will so we could kill each other for reasons real or imagined.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Canada, Australia, and so on are still part of the British Empire.

From a practical standpoint that simply isn't the case. They are sovereign states.

But I don't want to derail the discussion too much.

 

[TheParser]

Of course, violence is sometimes justified.

If you know, for example, that some horrible individual is going to sucker punch you, you are certainly justified to use violence in order to protect yourself.

If a horrible individual breaks into your home, you are certainly justified to use violence to terminate his crime career.

Violence is often necessary because human beings are so uncivilized.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It probably still would exist. I just would not have started when it did. The British Empire was going to fall apart anyway. Canada exists, Australia exists and so on.

If it had started later (like Canada or Australia did) it would certainly not have had its current territory.

 

[soap box]

Yes, obviously. A absolutest "no" stance on this question is insane.

To show why I'll use an extreme example, but it cuts right to the point.

In Nazi Germany (I know I know, Godwins law) would you condemn the Jews or other persecuted minorities violently rioting? Assassinating government officials? Bombing SS or police buildings? Killing people with Nazi armbands in the street? Would you have told them they should "just peacefully protest their government "?

If you believe a government truly has a monopoly on moral violence then that's an incredibly authoritarian position in my opinion.

I didn't see it that way, but I see what you're saying, OK, I should have asked about modern USA, present situation kind of thing, but yes, I agree with what you've just posted.

 

[StillBallin75]

This country was built on a revolution.

A revolution, against far more minor oppression, I might add, than our government has often inflicted on others both at home and abroad.

 

[highroller]

I think violences an acceptable form of throwing off the shackles of government however I agree with this point in the Declaration of Independence

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I didn't see it that way, but I see what you're saying, OK, I should have asked about modern USA, present situation kind of thing, but yes, I agree with what you've just posted.

If we move from the abstract to the specific, it's not really possible to answer "yes" without advocating for domestic terrorism.

I think it's better this conversation remains in the abstract.

 

[TearItAllDown]

I'm pretty sure everyone here would love to see the people of North Korea rise up against their government. How many here would cheer if Venezuela, Iran, China or Russia started a bloody civil war against their governments? I'm definitely sure every US liberal and progressive would rise up and torch the entire country if they no longer had much of a voice in the US government. I'm pretty sure many republicans would rise up if the left continues on its destructive path and can't be voted out in 2022 and 2024.

 

[neil]

From a practical standpoint that simply isn't the case. They are sovereign states.

I don't know what "practical standpoint" means & they are not sovereign states at all; they belong to the British Empire monarch. I don't know why people think otherwise.

See in the box column on the right, under "government" & you'll see it specifies that it has a monarch and Elizabeth II is the monarch for every single one of these articles (and I don't know if that's all of them):

Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

New Zealand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Bahamas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jamaica - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Belize - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Solomon Islands - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Antigua and Barbuda - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Grenada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Papua New Guinea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Saint Lucia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Saint Kitts and Nevis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The British Empire is alive and well, it expands throughout the world, and somehow they have people believing otherwise.

But I don't want to derail the discussion too much.

This begs the question - does it derail the discussion? I think it is perfectly relevant to the topic.

 

[bomberfox]

Yes, obviously. A absolutest "no" stance on this question is insane.

To show why I'll use an extreme example, but it cuts right to the point.

In Nazi Germany (I know I know, Godwins law) would you condemn the Jews or other persecuted minorities violently rioting? Assassinating government officials? Bombing SS or police buildings? Killing people with Nazi armbands in the street? Would you have told them they should "just peacefully protest their government "?

If you believe a government truly has a monopoly on moral violence then that's an incredibly authoritarian position in my opinion.

This. Telling people who are oppressed to the point of genocide to peacefully protest is not eschewing violence. Violence is already being committed against them, fighting back is self defense.

 

[Blue Dog]

If the thirteen colonies didn’t take action…

 

[Mycroft]

All votes will be seen. You can see the results before voting, You may change your vote.
Please be so good as to explain, or just leave us a note, if you vote 'other' .
At the moment, I intend to be mostly hands-off, I don't intend to argue much. It's more fun if folks give some specific examples of why they chose the option they did.

Other.

Sometimes.

 

[Gaius46]

sometimes justified.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Other.

Sometimes.

Nonsense. The top poll choice was “sometimes”.

 

[soap box]

Define violent.

Do you consider the American & French revolutions to be examples of justified violence against the government?

Well, I can't make time to define violence, but yes I agree those revolutions were violent, and against the government. I should have qualified the poll to ask about current events, the situation in the US in our time. But hey, the question and answers are still interesting.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Yes, otherwise the US would not exist.

Changed my vote to sometimes but rare, technically and historically speaking @ttwtt78640 has the right answer.

It is elementary to argue that the further we go, the larger and more centralized our government grows probably in combination with how much further we end up divided by duopoly, the more the Constitution's purpose for the protection of the people becomes a concern. In all of its forms, Tyranny was then and is now a concern worth discussion.

But the other real issue to address is means and reason at any point in time in comparison to some other.

What the colonies did to the British has no real apples to apples relation to a political ideology of one set of states going to civil war with the rest, nor does either have much apples to apples relation to today's extreme view that violence is needed to "stop the steal."

All that really means is the reasons for resorting to violence will always be evaluated by not just the opposition to that violence at the time but at all points in history from that point forward.

What is deemed a moral or just reason at any point in time that is violent or results in violence is something taught later but not necessarily agreed to, if for any other reason than learning and evolution away from the things that make human beings very susceptible to violence. Individual level, group, community or area, up to an entire nation.

But even that never entirely rules out the idea that at some point when things are so bad for whoever is marginalized regardless of how or in how many ways they are marginalized, violence may be the only answer left.

 

[bluesmoke]

It is justified in the "minds" of anarchists against democracy and those rational minds wishing to defend American democracy against violent attack on their democracy. The problem is it's a "wish" dependent on the action of good people, and “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Right now, I don't see anybody doing anything good. Plenty of bad happening.

 

[neil]

Well, I can't make time to define violence, but yes I agree those revolutions were violent, and against the government. I should have qualified the poll to ask about current events, the situation in the US in our time. But hey, the question and answers are still interesting.

It seems what you really want to know is in what way current events differ from those revolutions.