• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Violence is Golden

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Violence is Golden
By Jack Donovan On March 15, 2011

0.jpg

A lot of people like to think they are “non-violent.” Generally, people claim to “abhor” the use of violence, and violence is viewed negatively by most folks. Many fail to differentiate between just and unjust violence. Some especially vain, self-righteous types like to think they have risen above the nasty, violent cultures of their ancestors. They say that “violence isn't the answer.” They say that “violence doesn't solve anything.”

They’re wrong. Every one of them relies on violence, every single day.

On election day, people from all walks of life line up to cast their ballots, and by doing so, they hope to influence who gets to wield the axe of authority. Those who want to end violence — as if that were possible or even desirable — often seek to disarm their fellow citizens. This does not actually end violence. It merely gives the state mob a monopoly on violence. This makes you “safer,” so long as you don’t piss off the boss.

All governments — left, right or other — are by their very nature coercive. They have to be.

Order demands violence.


[Continues at link]
Violence, we hear about it everyday on the news. Its there, its real and we as armed individuals sometimes must play that game. I came across this article and found the authors take on it very insightful. I think there is a lot to think about as it pertains to Self defensive and our own ability to bring violence to the table to meet an attacker. IMO if have made the decision to carry a gun, you should also make the decision to bring violence down on your attacker. Thoughts??
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Violence, we hear about it everyday on the news. Its there, its real and we as armed individuals sometimes must play that game. I came across this article and found the authors take on it very insightful. I think there is a lot to think about as it pertains to Self defensive and our own ability to bring violence to the table to meet an attacker. IMO if have made the decision to carry a gun, you should also make the decision to bring violence down on your attacker. Thoughts??
Spot on. The fact is that violence is not preferable to peace, but there is a time where violence may be the only option. Those who proclaim that all violence is to be avoided fail to realize sometimes it cannot be, there are times where self defense and defense of others becomes necessary, the aggressor sure doesn't have a problem with initiating force, and will not have a problem with continuing or even elevating force to meet their desired result, one must be willing to meet that violent force with necessary counter force.

I've also seen even here that some are willing to ignore certain truths. An arrest is force, it is "hopefully" low level violence but involves detaining a person and binding them to prevent escape or retaliation, it is force and I've seen people dismiss it as not violence but rather "upholding the law", well, that's fine except most people won't willingly surrender themselves unless there is some threat of force(violence) as a consequence to doing so. As well, as the article has stated, government is a collective and legalized force, it relies on the implication of violence to force compliance with the law.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Violence, we hear about it everyday on the news. Its there, its real and we as armed individuals sometimes must play that game. I came across this article and found the authors take on it very insightful. I think there is a lot to think about as it pertains to Self defensive and our own ability to bring violence to the table to meet an attacker. IMO if have made the decision to carry a gun, you should also make the decision to bring violence down on your attacker. Thoughts??
Heya Jerry. :2wave: Pretty much says it Right here.

Order demands violence.

A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion. States rely on laws enforced by men ready to do violence against lawbreakers. Every tax, every code and every licensing requirement demands an escalating progression of penalties that, in the end, must result in the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non–compliance. Every time a soccer mom stands up and demands harsher penalties for drunk driving, or selling cigarettes to minors, or owning a pit bull, or not recycling, she is petitioning the state to use force to impose her will. She is no longer asking nicely. The viability of every family law, gun law, zoning law, traffic law, immigration law, import law, export law and financial regulation depends on both the willingness and wherewithal of the group to exact order by force.

Violence is the final answer to the question, “Or else what?”

Violence is the gold standard, the reserve that guarantees order. In actuality, it is better than a gold standard, because violence has universal value. Violence transcends the quirks of philosophy, religion, technology and culture. People say that music is a universal language, but a punch in the face hurts the same no matter what language you speak or what kind of music you prefer. If you are trapped in a room with me and I grab a pipe and gesture to strike you with it, no matter who you are, your monkey brain will immediately understand “or else what.” And thereby, a certain order is achieved.

The practical understanding of violence is as basic to human life and human order as is the idea that fire is hot. You can use it, but you must respect it. You can act against it, and you can sometimes control it, but you can’t just wish it away. Like wildfire, sometimes it is overwhelming and you won’t know it is coming until it is too late. Sometimes it is bigger than you. Ask the Cherokee, the Inca, the Romanovs, the Jews, the Confederates, the barbarians and the Romans. They all know “Or else what.”

The basic acknowledgement that order demands violence is not a revelation, but to some it may seem like one. The very notion may make some people apoplectic, and some will furiously attempt to dispute it with all sorts of convoluted and hypothetical arguments, because it doesn’t sound very “nice.” But something doesn’t need to be “nice” in order for it to be true. Reality doesn’t bend over to accommodate fantasy or sentimentality.

George Orwell wrote in his “Notes on Nationalism” that, for the pacifist, the truth that, “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf,” is obvious but impossible to accept. Much unreason flows from the inability to accept our passive reliance on violence for protection. Escapist fantasies of the John Lennon “Imagine” variety corrupt our ability to see the world as it is, and be honest with ourselves about the naturalness of violence to the human animal. There is no evidence to support the idea that man is an inherently peaceful creature. There is substantial evidence to support the notion that violence has always been a part of human life. Every day, archeologists unearth another primitive skull with damage from weapons or blunt force trauma. The very first legal codes were shockingly grisly. If we feel less threatened today, if we feel as though we live in a non–violent society, it is only because we have ceded so much power over our daily lives to the state. Some call this reason, but we might just as well call it laziness. A dangerous laziness, it would seem, given how little most people say they trust politicians.....snip~

Violence is a tool.....one that is used and abused. The world is violent and it is in this state at all times. Myself, I have often thought that since mankind is at conflict with himself most of the time, that such was why violence was always part of the Natural Order and easier to commit upon others.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,508
Reaction score
50,075
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All government and law is coercion backed by the threat or use of force.


Most governments declare a monopoly on violence, taking the right to violence unto themselves... ours is one of the very few that codifies into its structure that it does not hold a monopoly on force but shares that fundamental power with the People.


In the long run, force is the only true guarantor of any right.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
60,192
Reaction score
32,962
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hence, the value of the Second Amendment.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hence, the value of the Second Amendment.
I go to firearms shops and areas in sporting goods stores often, there are usually interesting conversations to be had. In those conversations the consensus is always that we hope the firearm we purchased is only ever needed for target practice, but we realize that bad things happen, we don't want to harm anyone, but will to protect ourselves, our loved ones, or even that stranger who is in a life and death situation within ear shot. We don't want to be violent, but will engage if forced to by the malicious actions of others.
 

Grand Mal

Question authority
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
35,661
Reaction score
18,199
Location
on an island off the left coast of Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nope.....South Side of Chicago. Home of the Democratic blend of Violence. :lol:
Well, I'm not naive and nobody mistrusts government more than I but I learned different lessons growing up.
Might be just a real estate thing- location, location, location!
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Violence, we hear about it everyday on the news. Its there, its real and we as armed individuals sometimes must play that game. I came across this article and found the authors take on it very insightful. I think there is a lot to think about as it pertains to Self defensive and our own ability to bring violence to the table to meet an attacker. IMO if have made the decision to carry a gun, you should also make the decision to bring violence down on your attacker. Thoughts??
Made that decision many many years ago.
But I was raised by a warrior and a police officer father and DoD RedCross mother from the Greatest Generation.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
60,192
Reaction score
32,962
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, I'm not naive and nobody mistrusts government more than I but I learned different lessons growing up.
Might be just a real estate thing- location, location, location!
What lessons did you learn?
 

Grand Mal

Question authority
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
35,661
Reaction score
18,199
Location
on an island off the left coast of Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So if someone kicks in your door? You just going to cower or fight?
Quickest way to find out, laddybuck, is to come and try it.
Got absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but go ahead, indulge yourself. I'll trade threats of personal violence with you for a post or two but my patience will run out quickly and I'll bail on you.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Quickest way to find out, laddybuck, is to come and try it.
Got absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but go ahead, indulge yourself. I'll trade threats of personal violence with you for a post or two but my patience will run out quickly and I'll bail on you.
Calm down bad man, it was just a question.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,508
Reaction score
50,075
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, I'm not naive and nobody mistrusts government more than I but I learned different lessons growing up.
Might be just a real estate thing- location, location, location!

The force of government is commonly cloaked and adorned in lofty words and well-dressed philosophies, like the velvet glove around the iron fist... but the iron fist is still there, and it still gets used.


When somebody whups your ass within an inch of your life, the fact that they had a badge and a reason may make it legal, but it does not change the fact that violence was used.

Every piece of legislation is saying "we commend the use of force to make this so".

Even parking tickets are force. Accumulate enough unpaid ones, and ignore the notices in your mailbox long enough, and a warrant will be issued for your arrest. Ignore THAT, and armed men will be sent 'round to your abode to collect you and bring you in. If you decline to accompany the nice armed gentlemen, they will use force to compel you. If you resist, that force will escalate into serious violence.... resist successfully enough and they will kill you.

And that all started over parking tickets...
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
(snicker!)
You tell me, what reaction do you have when asked a question like that?
Pretty much what my first post was in this thread.
I have made my decision many many years ago as far as the security of myself and my family are concerned. But there are many people also that would lay down thinking that any attackers would just be there to take the TV and VCR and are not willing to fight at that point, let alone take a life.
Yet the video of the woman in New Jersey says that many that are willing to steal from you will also beat, rape, or kill you for kicks.
 

Grand Mal

Question authority
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
35,661
Reaction score
18,199
Location
on an island off the left coast of Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The force of government is commonly cloaked and adorned in lofty words and well-dressed philosophies, like the velvet glove around the iron fist... but the iron fist is still there, and it still gets used.


When somebody whups your ass within an inch of your life, the fact that they had a badge and a reason may make it legal, but it does not change the fact that violence was used.

Every piece of legislation is saying "we commend the use of force to make this so".

Even parking tickets are force. Accumulate enough unpaid ones, and ignore the notices in your mailbox long enough, and a warrant will be issued for your arrest. Ignore THAT, and armed men will be sent 'round to your abode to collect you and bring you in. If you decline to accompany the nice armed gentlemen, they will use force to compel you. If you resist, that force will escalate into serious violence.... resist successfully enough and they will kill you.

And that all started over parking tickets...
Yeah, but you're describing the breakdown of order. Order, as I said, is a matter of mutual consent and when one side reneges or removes it's consent from the equation, order breaks down and violence ensues.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,508
Reaction score
50,075
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Long subject. Many, I hope, but none of them leads to the phrase, 'Order demands violence.'
Mostly, order is a matter of mutual consent. Violence creates disorder.
Mutual consent creates order among reasonable people as long as they all agree on the collective rules.

But when so much as ONE person says "No, I don't agree with that and I will not cooperate or comply," you have a problem. If this refusenik will not be persuaded or reasoned with, then you have two choices: leave him be and let him go his own way, or use force to compel him or stop him or kill him as necessary.


If he simply wishes to wear a red shirt when everyone else agreed that Wednesday was Blue Shirt Day, no big.

If on the other hand his noncompliance results in HARM to someone (property or personal), THEN you have a much more serious matter... and a question to answer; will society (a group of individuals who agree to do things certain ways) DEFEND their members who are being harmed by this person refusing to conform to the group standards by such means as are necessary up to and including force.... or will you simply shrug and tell the victims "Oh well, I guess you're SOL" (in which case you are inviting them to violate the societal compact by taking the matter into their own hands, indeed nearly insuring that will happen, calling the legitimacy of your society into question entirely.)

Those who will not comply without the threat of force are a large minority; those who will not comply without force being used or imminently threatened upon them are rare but exist.... in law enforcement we called them "the two percenters" and they cannot be managed AT ALL except by force and IMMINENT threat of force. When I say imminent I mean "gun in their face imminent'... because if you turn your back for a moment they'll attack.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,508
Reaction score
50,075
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah, but you're describing the breakdown of order. Order, as I said, is a matter of mutual consent and when one side reneges or removes it's consent from the equation, order breaks down and violence ensues.

And what is the purpose of that violence? To restore order.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Long subject. Many, I hope, but none of them leads to the phrase, 'Order demands violence.'
Mostly, order is a matter of mutual consent. Violence creates disorder.
Chaos creates disorder not Violence.....it can attribute to disorder.

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
Mahatma Gandhi.....;)
 

Grand Mal

Question authority
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
35,661
Reaction score
18,199
Location
on an island off the left coast of Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And what is the purpose of that violence? To restore order.
(grin!)
Depends which side is which!
But I take your point. Authority sometimes has to resort to violence but isn't that a result (in any decent society) of someone committing some form of assault on the common good? Hopefully your parking-ticket scenario couldn't happen but if it did I'd call it a failure of the system. Generally, the system of 'order by mutual consent' works fine.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
(grin!)
Depends which side is which!
But I take your point. Authority sometimes has to resort to violence but isn't that a result (in any decent society) of someone committing some form of assault on the common good? Hopefully your parking-ticket scenario couldn't happen but if it did I'd call it a failure of the system. Generally, the system of 'order by mutual consent' works fine.
From Sun Tzu.....we can learn in dealing with conflict.

‘About 2,300 years ago in what is now north China, a lineage of military leaders put their collective wisdom into written form for the first time. Their text was to shape the strategic thinking of all East Asia. It offered a radically new perspective on conflict, whereby one might attain victory without going to battle. Though in the West their text is called The Art of War, in China it is still known as the Sun Tzu, named for the patriarch of their lineage.

Over the last half-century, this text has become a handbook for people all around the world seeking to transform their approach to conflict, whether in warfare, in business or simply in everyday life. When a squadron leader targets his objective or a boardroom falls under siege, when our neighbors join a zoning battle to protect local parkland, we may find modern-day warriors turning to the Sun Tzu. Clearly they have a conviction that its ancient wisdom has considerable value today. But how might we apply this Chinese text to our lives in a genuine manner? How can it teach us to work more effectively with conflict? These are the central questions of this book.’

We believe that it is possible to apply the wisdom of the text to our lives in a genuine manner, and that the result is to uncover a more effective way of working with conflict. This conviction follows from our view that the wisdom of the text does not belong to any proprietary group, Chinese or Western. It is a profound human knowledge, something to which every one of us has access. Aided by a translation that fosters the perspective of the text which we call 'taking whole,' the reader is able to evoke his or her own insight.

The Sun Tzu recommends that the starting point for any endeavor is knowledge, of ourselves and of the other. In chapter 3 it says:

And so in the military –
Knowing the other and knowing oneself,
In one hundred battles no danger.
Not knowing the other and knowing oneself,
One victory for one loss.
Not knowing the other and not knowing oneself,
In every battle certain defeat.

Though the Sun Tzu offers models of behavior, it does not suggest we copy them. In other words, we are on our own, as each new life situation arises. No person, no book, no external wisdom can tell us how to act. Even previously successful models cannot simply be laid over the unique realities of our present situation. As chapter 1 of the Sun Tzu says,

These are the victories of the military lineage.
They cannot be transmitted in advance.....snip~

The Art of War - Additional Essays
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,508
Reaction score
50,075
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
(grin!)
Depends which side is which!
But I take your point. Authority sometimes has to resort to violence but isn't that a result (in any decent society) of someone committing some form of assault on the common good? Hopefully your parking-ticket scenario couldn't happen but if it did I'd call it a failure of the system. Generally, the system of 'order by mutual consent' works fine.
:) Yes, it does depend on which side is which, or on your perspective and frame of reference. Societies or governments may impose order that is reasonable and just; or "order" that is unjust and brutal.

To some degree what is just or unjust is a matter of perspective.... a good many of those who make their livings through criminal endeavors view government's interference in same as "unreasonable", lol.


However, the question of whether authority resorting to violence is a result of someone "committing assault" upon the common good is a complicated question. What is an assault on the common good?

Did you know that there are certain plants and animals that, if you get caught bringing them into the country (perhaps merely seeds or leaves of same) you have committed a FEDERAL FELONY and can be locked up for many years for this.... even if you had no idea the plant was on the list? Even if it was completely legal in the country where you bought it? Even if the presence of some of the plant matter in your luggage was entirely accidental?

Allow me to point something out.... at some point in your life, you have almost certainly committed a FELONY crime. That is, a crime you could be locked up for a year or more for. Now before you get indignant and protest that you are not a criminal, I'm not saying you are one... not in the usual sense. What I mean is there are literally so many laws on the books that Supreme Court Justices do not know them all without referring to a well-stocked law library, and they are not all reasonable and common-sense things!

You probably didn't mean to; you probably didn't KNOW it was a felony and STILL don't know, and would be SHOCKED to find you could spend years in prison for something that seemed reasonable or harmless... but it is most likely so. Such is the complexity of our society, and our lawmakers are not always reasonable.


Mutual consent probably SEEMS to work well... if you've spent most of your time around reasonable people with much to lose from non-compliance. Spend some time in certain other places and you'll see a very different picture of how well mutual consent works among people who don't hold it in high respect as you do.



Have you ever seen this video by a Harvard Law Professor? It is accurate and quite compelling and well worth the time, and addresses much more than the title suggests...



 
Last edited:
Top Bottom