[Vivisekt]

The topic of this discussion is the use of physical force and its justification (if any). Is it acceptable to use force as a last resort? As a mundane tool for manipulating individuals or systems? Can an individual or sociopolitical system effectively survive and prosper without ever resorting to force? What degree of realism would you assign to your view on the subject?



Discussion has now begun; send a PM to Vivisekt if you are interested in seriously participating in this discourse. The guidelines for this particular discussion are as follows:

* 1.) Debate must be completely mature in nature. No flames, inflammatory innuendo, personal attacks, or other such tactics will be tolerated. Since this is a special discourse, participants should endeavor to fully address the points that are volunteered throughout the discussion if they are able (although posts need not be a specific length, or carry a specific format).

* 2.) Do not make one or two lined posts. Half-assed posting will be deleted.

* 3.) You may not use emoticons.

[Spin]

I believe a civilization will sooner or later have to resort to force.

No large nation can grow and let its culture flourish without making enemies. Smaller nations can survive without force, but never the powerful.

Saying that though I dont believe that force should be used except to defend a sovereign nation from an imperialistic type invasion.


Froce should never be used in brining about change. If you use force to get into power then your enemies arent going to think twice about using force against you and so force will always have to be relied upon.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Force should never be used in bringing about change. If you use force to get into power then your enemies aren't going to think twice about using force against you and so force will always have to be relied upon.

I disagree.

Force is the fundamental currency of most human interactions; indeed, the social institutions which you believe should never be changed forcefully are themselves complicated frameworks of force. While I obviously prefer that changes be brought about peacefully, I acknowledge that this is not always possible, and some changes are needed badly enough that force is justified.

Of course, the use of force will always invite the use of retaliatory force. This is not really a drawback, however, as there is no guarantee that force will not be used upon you if you are peaceful.

[Hatred]

I am not capable of believe in an Absolute Pacifist society, but in a society able to avoid wars, obviously yes.

If we had fair and balanced international institutions, force would be completly unjustified and therefore punishable by legal procedures like sanctions through such institutions.

I am against interventions with the objective of "making a country free" or "getting rid of a dictator". I agree with foreign interventions to give food starving populations, helping them to get out of their country if they want (North Korea, for example), but NEVER to occupy a country.

[~Magius~]

Force is a last resort, and must stay as such.

There are many cases in which force is necessary. This is a terrible thing but true. If you want to save lives, many times you must destroy them too.

Negotiations and social solutions must always come first. But when faced with lethal danger, one must ensure that lives aren't lost for ideology. If all force was abolished, then force would not be necessary. But when the scale is life versus life, one must choose the lesser of two evils.

The user of force must never, ever lose sight of the reason for his force. If force becomes an end, that side has lost. One must examine in each case whether the criteria for force apply.

Additionally, when dealing with social and not governmental decisions, force must be used with forethought and calculation. The emotion of violence is not permissable. Force may only be used when two evils are weighed one against the other and force turns out to be the lesser.

[Mr. Anderson]

I feel force is not justified in any case except for immediate self-defense of oneself or another and reasonable pre-emptive self-defense of oneself or another. The first is self-explanatory, and the second is slightly murky.

By reasonable pre-emptive self-defense, I mean a situation where an adversary is preparing for the use of force against us. An example could be Nazi Germany before annexing Poland. I would have condoned some use of force in terms of sabotage operations and such. There was a strong possibility that an attack was going to occur, and I would not have objected if pre-emptive measures were taken.

Another situation, more modern, could be North Korea. They are getting close to obtaining nuclear weapons and have threatened to turn us into a "sea of fire". I would support actions designed to halt this program, even if it would require the use of force to do so.

What I would not condone would be a situation like Iraq. They may have eventually posed a threat to us, yes, but there are many other nations which could pose a much larger threat. They didn't have any plans to attack in the future.

Basically, my views are a carbon copy of most everyone else's. Force is justified in defense and defense only.

[SpiderMonkey]

Its easy to make moral statments, but I prefer to think of it like this: What can force achieve? The answer is 'very little' in the vast majority of circumstances. I can't think of an example where someone was made happier through the exercise of force.

Most people say defence is justified violence, but that is a dangerous statement as it hinges completely on what qualifies as defence. The Bush administration consider invading Iraq an act of defence. The Russians consider military actions against Chechnya to be defence. Hitler, when he invaded Poland, tried to insinuate the Poles had attacked Germany. 'Self Defence' is the rallying cry of the aggressor.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Force is a last resort, and must stay as such.

The problem is, by the time you have exercised all of your options, it is often too late for force to be effective-- and if you have to resort to force then, you will lose.

Force has to be applied not when every other option has been tried, but at the last moment when it can be effective. And, since the use of force means the loss of lives on both sides, it might be strategically necessary to use that force even earlier, so that fewer lives on both sides might be lost.

Negotiations and social solutions must always come first.

The problem being that negotiations and social solutions both revolve around force-- groups that lack the capacity to use force are not even invited to the negotiating table, and the importance that the parties treat the negotiations relates directly to the relative force potential of the other negotiators.

All a negotiation is is two (or more) groups with the capacity to use force, discussing the force they have at their disposal, explaining their goals, and making compromises, based on those two factors, to avoid either side actually expending that force. It's a strategic move.

If your opponent is using negotiation as a stall tactic, to dilute the efficacy of your forces, are you not justified in using them immediately for maximum benefit?

[~Magius~]

I feel force is not justified in any case except for immediate self-defence of oneself or another and reasonable pre-emptive self-defence of oneself or another.

Precisely. Force, which usually means injuring or killing, must be balanced by the same risk on the side which wil use force. So you may only use force if it will prevent the same loss on your side, or a similar loss but of non-aggressors. The deaths of aggressors are worth less than those of non-aggressors, as the aggressors will harm more if not stopped.

What can force achieve?

Force can achieve, first and foremost, the saving of lives or the minimization of casualties. That must always remain the first priority. Force can never be a permenant solution, it must be a means for which the end is peace.

The problem is, by the time you have exercised all of your options, it is often too late for force to be effective-- and if you have to resort to force then, you will lose.

Usually no. In the case of a small scale, such as a punch, the outcome is minor; worse comes to worse, you get bruised. But you will usually succeed witha social solution if you don't give up. This is because the man who punched you had a reason to do so, and communicating that you want him to stop, or to help him, will usually be successful. In a larger scale, such as a war, negotiations are even more clear cut, as each side has a purpose. If the purpose is simply annexation, defensive force must be used, but all the while one might try to dissuade the other side.

The problem being that negotiations and social solutions both revolve around force

And that is what needs to be fixed. Negotiations must be open to all, they must last longer and be more thorough, and they must precede violence.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Usually no. In the case of a small scale, such as a punch, the outcome is minor; worse comes to worse, you get bruised. But you will usually succeed with a social solution if you don't give up. This is because the man who punched you had a reason to do so, and communicating that you want him to stop, or to help him, will usually be successful.

I was taught this approach to conflict as a child. My own (painful) experiences have not borne it out.

In a larger scale, such as a war, negotiations are even more clear cut, as each side has a purpose. If the purpose is simply annexation, defensive force must be used, but all the while one might try to dissuade the other side.

Certainly so. However, this is exactly my point: that negotiation is a strategic element and functions best when it is part of a strategy that also includes force.

The problem being that negotiations and social solutions both revolve around force

And that is what needs to be fixed. Negotiations must be open to all, they must last longer and be more thorough, and they must precede violence.

This is your error: you view negotiation's strategic role in conflict as a misuse, an error in perception. Negotiation is a strategem by nature-- it is a natural part of any conflict, and an extension of one's capacity to use force. Without that force, negotiation is an empty shell-- a farce.

[SpiderMonkey]

What can force achieve?

Force can achieve, first and foremost, the saving of lives or the minimization of casualties. That must always remain the first priority. Force can never be a permenant solution, it must be a means for which the end is peace.

Please tell me how you can minimize casualties by killing people. Especially when, as is the case in all large scale uses of force, the people you are killing are not the ones who are a threat to you.

Force can never be a means for peace. Any party made to capitulate purely through force will at some point take revenge on those who forced their surrender (see Germany after WW1).

[CCJ]

Force can never be a means for peace. Any party made to capitulate purely through force will at some point take revenge on those who forced their surrender (see Germany after WW1).

I agree.

Once the allies had forced Germany to pay for the war damages it's economy was in ruins. Once the Great Depression hit Germany's economy was in even worse shape. Both of these contributions to the crappiness of Germany's economy (as well as widespread anti-semitism in Europe at the time) aided in Hitler's successes in the elections (though he never really won, he still managed 30% of the vote or more). He was eventually appointed chancellor.

Once Hitler was securely in power he rebuilt Germany's military and begun, essentially, World War II which would end up destroying 50 million lives.

Had World War I not occured it would be unlikely that Hitler would become chancellor of, much less the dictator of, Germany.

In the Israel-Palestine conflict one violent act is countered with another violent act. These are often justified by "retribution" or something like that. Violence leads only unto more violence.

If you kill a murderer who would otherwise have killed 2 people, you have saved a life.

So, if an Israeli tank goes into Gaza and kills 2 suicide bombers that were planning on blowing themselves up in Jerusalem (and assuming these bombers were going to kill 19 Israeli soldiers), but in the process the tank kills 15 civilians, was the tank justified in doing so?

What if that same tank went into Gaza and killed 2 children who would have grown up to become suicide bombers? Would this be justified?

What if a suicide bomber killed 10 Israeli children, all of which would grow up to become Israeli soldiers, would this be justified?

[Hatred]

If you kill a murderer who would otherwise have killed 2 people, you have saved a life.

How much people did the US military kill in 9/11 retaliation?
You can say "few" thinking about Afghanistan, but obviously Iraq was accepted by the American people due to fear of another 9/11.
Hitherto, 15377 civilians were killed in Iraq, to retaliate the death of a bit more than 3000. And I don't say the Afghans deaths because I didn't find an official number.

This is not saving lives, it's destroying many more lives. Imagine the pain of the families of Iraqis and Afghanis deads.

[Korimyr the Rat]

How much people did the US military kill in 9/11 retaliation?
You can say "few" thinking about Afghanistan, but obviously Iraq was accepted by the American people due to fear of another 9/11.

Oh, I'd say we killed a hell of a lot of people in Afghanistan. Not as many as Iraq, but more than, say, my local police department could get away with before they were stopped, if they were to go on some pointless bloody rampage.

However, in the case of Afghanistan, I think it's relatively clear, even with the pacification issues, that we saved more lives than we took, in the long run, if you look at how effectively we dismantled a major international terrorist organization. We took away their capacity for major strikes and made it easier to prevent them from making minor strikes.

It was a strategically viable use of force...

Hitherto, 15377 civilians were killed in Iraq, to retaliate the death of a bit more than 3000. And I don't say the Afghans deaths because I didn't find an official number.

... until we fucked it up royally.

Iraq gave them a rallying point to bolster their numbers and their organization. It gave them a reason to renew their efforts against us, and gave them a newly-destabilized base to operate out of.

Not only did we kill some fifteen thousand Iraqi civilians, but we also set the stage for further military conflict and terrorist acts in the future, costing some indeterminate number of lives. (Unless we mess things up worse, we'll probably have good numbers in ten years or so.)

Obviously, not strategically viable. And since other people typically have stricter moral standards than my strategic concerns, this action was clearly indefensible.

This is not saving lives, it's destroying many more lives. Imagine the pain of the families of Iraqis and Afghanis deads.

There isn't a villain so vicious, so hated, so evil, that there won't be tears shed at his funeral. No matter how justified the use of force is, there will always be someone left behind to grieve the dead.

It's unfortunate, but unavoidable.

[Noumenon]

The libertarian position on the use of force is that it is only justified in the defense of one's rightful property, defense of oneself, or defense of others. The implication of this belief is that nearly all government actions are wrong, since government is primarily an instrument of brute force. Whether it is waging war on terrorism, poverty, or drugs, the government is usually coercing innocent individuals against their will. If it wants to ban something like marijuana, then it must be prepared to arrest and lock up non-violent citizens whose only crime is thinking they have a right to smoke a plant. And if those citizens resist arrest, it must be prepared to kill them. Whether it is getting people to pay their taxes or enforcing a minimum wage law, the government is forcing people to do its bidding at gunpoint.

Why is force only justified in self-defense, defense of others, and defense of rightful property? The individual has a fundamental right to his own body and what he produces with that body. If the use of force to defend one's self-ownership and rightful property is not allowed, those rights are meaningless. How can you have a right to not be enslaved if neither you nor anyone else is allowed to stop someone from enslaving you? How can you have a right to not be murdered if all the police can do is tell the murderer, "Stop!" A right is nothing if it can't be ensured with physical force.

The position that non-violent means are often effective is respectable, but they are not always effective. Would pacifism have been effective against Nazi Germany? No, if we were all pacifists, we'd all be suffering under the oppression of tyrants right now. It is a fact that there are men who will not be deterred by peaceful means from aggressing on people's rights. Pacifism would subject its followers to the will of those men. This is self-destructive and not good for either the individual or society.

[SpiderMonkey]

The libertarian position on the use of force is that it is only justified in the defence of one's rightful property, defence of oneself, or defence of others. The implication of this belief is that nearly all government actions are wrong, since government is primarily an instrument of brute force. Whether it is waging war on terrorism, poverty, or drugs, the government is usually coercing innocent individuals against their will. If it wants to ban something like marijuana, then it must be prepared to arrest and lock up non-violent citizens whose only crime is thinking they have a right to smoke a plant. And if those citizens resist arrest, it must be prepared to kill them. Whether it is getting people to pay their taxes or enforcing a minimum wage law, the government is forcing people to do its bidding at gunpoint.

But who decides what your 'rightful' property is? If you claim the entire world for yourself you can feel justified in attacking everybody. This is basically how the Nazis saw Russia - they had a right to Lebensraum so they had to 'defend' this property right against lesser peoples.

Property is an agreement most of us never entered into. We were bought into this world being told that we had no access to certain parts of the world because those parts of the world existed solely for the benefit of other individuals. Fortunately I was able to see through this nonsense at an early age.

The position that non-violent means are often effective is respectable, but they are not always effective. Would pacifism have been effective against Nazi Germany? No, if we were all pacifists, we'd all be suffering under the oppression of tyrants right now. It is a fact that there are men who will not be deterred by peaceful means from aggressing on people's rights. Pacifism would subject its followers to the will of those men. This is self-destructive and not good for either the individual or society.

I disagree, a sufficient level of passive resistence would've destroyed even the third reich. All governments rule by fear, and if the population can conquer its fear a governments power instantly vanishes.

[Noumenon]

But who decides what your 'rightful' property is?

The law does. But rightful property is not just an arbitrary thing that the government decides; it is a philosophical concept that the law must coincide with. Everyone has a right to what he produces, as well as a right to enter into voluntary agreements. That is the basis of rightful property. If you take a piece of unowned land and use it to produce corn, that corn is rightfully yours. You then have the right to enter agreements in which you trade your ownership of some corn for ownership of say, some wheat. And if you wish to enter an agreement with some workers to have them harvest corn in exchange for a wage, that is your right also. In that case, the workers do have the right to own the corn they produce, but they previously agreed to sell it to you. Force must be used to defend these rights, for if that was not the case, anyone could walk up and take your corn or defraud you. How could any could any society, socialist or capitalist, long survive without force being used to defend private property? Even in a society based on collective ownership, each individual is given his share of that collective property, and it then becomes his private property. If anyone can just take that property, then socialism would quite ineffective.

If you claim the entire world for yourself you can feel justified in attacking everybody. This is basically how the Nazis saw Russia - they had a right to Lebensraum so they had to 'defend' this property right against lesser peoples.

This would not be in accordance with the philosophical concept of rightful property, so no, it would not be justified. In order to rightfully claim something, you must have produced it or entered into a voluntary agreement to own it. You can't simply claim anything as yours, even if the law is on your side.

Property is an agreement most of us never entered into. We were bought into this world being told that we had no access to certain parts of the world because those parts of the world existed solely for the benefit of other individuals. Fortunately I was able to see through this nonsense at an early age.

Property must exist in a civilized society. Without it, the strong would simply take what they wanted from the weak. Everyone must have an exclusive right to the necessities they own, at least. A society in which bands of theives can just steal the food right out of the hands of the poor is one I assume you would not want. No, property must exist, its just a matter of what property.

I disagree, a sufficient level of passive resistence would've destroyed even the third reich. All governments rule by fear, and if the population can conquer its fear a governments power instantly vanishes.

It may be that if all German citizens turned against Hitler and peacefully protested, he would fall from power. A government has to have some support from a good number of people. But what if passive means failed to stop people from supporting Hitler, as it likely would have? With the support of the Germans, no amount of peaceful protest could stop Hitler.

[Spin]

I disagree, a sufficient level of passive resistence would've destroyed even the third reich. All governments rule by fear, and if the population can conquer its fear a governments power instantly vanishes.

But that relies on the fact that all civilians will participate. If you have a group still loyal to the government who is to say that they wont use force when trying to get people to work? Look at the SA. 4 million in its ranks. Powerful enough to give fear to anyone or do the work itself.

Also passive resistance will destroy your economy. Look at what it did in 1923 to Germanys.

However, in the case of Afghanistan, I think it's relatively clear, even with the pacification issues, that we saved more lives than we took, in the long run, if you look at how effectively we dismantled a major international terrorist organization.

Also a prolonged war was ended. Is multi-lateral international intervention in civil wars permissable?

though he never really won, he still managed 30% of the vote or more

44% I think which, when he combined the Nazis with the nationalist party made it a victory.

[SpiderMonkey]

The law does. But rightful property is not just an arbitrary thing that the government decides; it is a philosophical concept that the law must coincide with. Everyone has a right to what he produces, as well as a right to enter into voluntary agreements. That is the basis of rightful property. If you take a piece of unowned land and use it to produce corn, that corn is rightfully yours. You then have the right to enter agreements in which you trade your ownership of some corn for ownership of say, some wheat. And if you wish to enter an agreement with some workers to have them harvest corn in exchange for a wage, that is your right also. In that case, the workers do have the right to own the corn they produce, but they previously agreed to sell it to you. Force must be used to defend these rights, for if that was not the case, anyone could walk up and take your corn or defraud you. How could any could any society, socialist or capitalist, long survive without force being used to defend private property? Even in a society based on collective ownership, each individual is given his share of that collective property, and it then becomes his private property. If anyone can just take that property, then socialism would quite ineffective.

In an ideal socialist system, people taking collective property would be an issue because there would be no way to benefit from private ownership. Without the state enforcing private property, it isn't possible to steal anything because your new acquisition would not be repescted.

This would not be in accordance with the philosophical concept of rightful property, so no, it would not be justified. In order to rightfully claim something, you must have produced it or entered into a voluntary agreement to own it. You can't simply claim anything as yours, even if the law is on your side.

Imagine a Nazi official saying 'The Slavs retaining their land would not be in accordance with the philosophical concept of Lebensraum, so no, it would not be justified.'

You can invent any philosophy you like to say you own something. This is why, the concept of property rights is dangerous, and their defence is actually offence.

Property must exist in a civilized society. Without it, the strong would simply take what they wanted from the weak. Everyone must have an exclusive right to the necessities they own, at least. A society in which bands of theives can just steal the food right out of the hands of the poor is one I assume you would not want. No, property must exist, its just a matter of what property.

Your first sentence is contradictory. 'Take' implies property. Also, why would anybody steal food in a society, such as we have today, that produces an abundance of food?

It may be that if all German citizens turned against Hitler and peacefully protested, he would fall from power. A government has to have some support from a good number of people. But what if passive means failed to stop people from supporting Hitler, as it likely would have? With the support of the Germans, no amount of peaceful protest could stop Hitler.

Looking at a smaller scale example, the holocaust. All the Nazis victims walked into the gas chambers they were executed in. The camps themselves were I believe built by the slave labour of those who would ultimately be killed there. Had a significant portion of the inmates simply ignored the orders they were given, the whole operation would've ground to a halt. Yes, the Nazis would've shot those who didn't obey them, but without their obedience they couldn't have killed nearly as many as they did.

Of course, it would be a seriously difficult thing for that many people to be that strong, which is why it didn't happen. The point is though, that without human fear, force loses its coercive value and is therefore useless.

[SpiderMonkey]

But that relies on the fact that all civilians will participate. If you have a group still loyal to the government who is to say that they wont use force when trying to get people to work? Look at the SA. 4 million in its ranks. Powerful enough to give fear to anyone or do the work itself.

Fear is the key word there. Without fear, those who rule by force are in fact powerless. Murdering someone does not get them to do work for you, and if the act itself doesn't intimidate others into working, the totalitarian has reached a dead end.

Also passive resistance will destroy your economy. Look at what it did in 1923 to Germanys.

The would kind of be the point.