[ckaihatsu]

Ahh, you can't run with the big dogs so you've regressed, and you're trolling.

Late, if it means that much to you, *you win*, okay? I'll shut up.

[late]

Late, if it means that much to you, *you win*, okay? I'll shut up.

The problem is it has no meaning. You aren't communicating.

[Deutschmania]

As to my position on political violence, I am a revolutionary defensivist. I recognize the right of self defense , and in addition the right of revolution. I feel that it is best not to initiate force, and furthermore I would even go beyond the non-aggression principle and hold as most ideal the non-retaliation of force. So if given the choice as to how I were to participate in armed combat, I would only agree to serve in a home guard. However, one might very well contend that my ethical stance is impractical, given the brutal reality of earthly circumstances. As a general rule however, I would simply agree with this essay, that violence only be used proportionately to counter aggression. What Everyone Needs to Know About Violence and Self-Defense

[Negotiator]

Obviously violence is sometimes justified. Self defense is a right for anyone.



Justified means just and appropiate.

Just means its a cause of the common good. Like human rights, or international law.

Appropiate in case of violence means all other options have been exhausted and its a cause that cannot be reasonably further delayed.



We are a naturally altruistic and peaceful species, and thus we like to fool ourselves in the thinking that we live in an altruistic and peaceful world.

In fact we have pacifists who wont engange in violence no matter what.

But if we look at nature how it really is, nature is in a constant state of war. The only animals which live in relative peace are those at the top of the food chain, like lions. Everyone else lives under the constant thread of getting eaten.

Wild animals dont ever know peace. Its the luxury of civilization that brings peace to human beings.

Likewise the moment you have somebody engaging in violence, other parties are forced into counterviolence.



And by the way, violence can have far more forms than just direct violence, by hurting a person directly. Denying people universal health care for example is violence, in fact this act can even kill somebody. Making people suffer poverty is violence, it directly causes suffering and also shortens their life expectation. Feeding people poisonous food is violence, because again this causes suffering and kills them earlier than they would die otherwise. Giving old people bad pensions is violence, since they can no longer work and have to suffer poverty. Making people do their work in inhuman conditions is violence. Etc.



Just as a note on the subject, while historically many successful revolutions like the french revolution and the US independence have been violent, science has found that statistically non-violent revolutions like the iranian one are far more likely to succeed.

This again shows that violence should only be the last option, if everything else has been tried and the matter really needs to be resolved.

[Wellsy]

Also interesting to note how state violence isn't framed as such because it is legitimized and normalized.

As an old but characteristic headline: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/violence-breaks-out-at-georgia-tech-after-vigil-for-student-killed-in-police-shooting.amp

“ Violence breaks out at Georgia Tech after vigil for student killed in police shooting”

So the police killing a student isn't part of the mentioned violence. And of course the pllice force is seen as enforcing the state even where it breaks the laws as there is extreme reluctance to curtail thugs in many cases. So any violence against the state is going to be seen as illegitimate for many unless you are already critical of the state and increasingly see it as illegitimate in some way. So there is an already existing violence which isn't always taken as much notice of or reacted to as strongly by much of the public because the police are seen as doing what they're supposed to.

And on that terrain, attacks on get vindicated by winners after the fact that they win, even past failures. How might many of the attacks prior to a revolution and take over be seen in light of the general u satisfaction of the population and the wrongness of the now destroyed state?

[Morgan Le Fey]

Property violence isn't violence. Corporations aren't real people so violence against Corporate property is especially not violence.

Violence toward the masses must be a last resort, but against bad political actors should be considered an option at all times. That violence doesn't have to result in killing or bodily injury as much as it must accomplish a goal, as in all conflicts Sun Tzu's rules apply.

I'll remind the gentlemen of the story of Freya and the Necklace of the Brisingamen, as evidence of Sun Tzu's wisdom.

Violence of the mind: oh yes always
Violence of the flesh: with precision like a sword-cut, when necessary.

[Puffer Fish]

Is violence ever justified in the pursuit of political goals?

Is there a government, anywhere on earth, that has ever answered no to that question?

There's a quote somewhere in Ecclesiastes that says something like there is a time for everything but we are not wise enough to know when.
It means people (and governments) should have great reluctance to stir up trouble when the certainty that is the right decision is not high. It also can be taken to mean people are mostly too stupid to know when the proper situation to rebel arises.

Governments frequently have double standards. It's very normal.

Governments and laws are imperfect, just as the people who compose them are imperfect.

I view separate nations and borders as a necessity (though based on somewhat arbitrary constructs), but it does reveal the hypocrisy of the institution of government when two governments disagree.
When a government wages war, it is admitting that violence and rebellion against government is condonable in some situations, but just not against their particular government.