Urbanvictim

As was stated earlier on I think the use of the word violence is a problem and should probably be avoided in these kinds of discussions. Like other trigger phrases such as socialism and feminism which are very difficult to define and hold different meanings to different people. Is that a reasonable conclusion to the original question?

Yes I completely agree. Violence is a last resort which is sometimes necessary but it is still wrong and corrupting

Cool thanks Dsayer. At least now I know One of the messages I posted was to you saying that I was up to podcast 881 but hadnt yet seen/heard brain bomb. Will check it out. It's frustrating because I have so much to catch up on but don't want to skip My conclusion around violence was that it's the initiation of the use of force with intent to harm another human being. The other examples are criminal/negligent but not violent. They would be handled rationally and on a case by case basis in a free society

Argh why can't I post? Ok looks like it might be finally working again now Sorry guys Ive posted a lot of stuff over last few hours and it all just dissapeard for some reason

Free market capitalism and the tragedy of the commons theory makes perfect sense it most situations. Where I have struggled is when it comes to the see. It is already horribly overfished and polluted but how could this be managed in a free society where there is zero control and difficulty allocating ownership plots as you can with land

Human beings are the only beings capable of rational thought (we have evolved past our primitive ancestry) Now that we are aware we can see that co-operation is far more efficient than violence. Stef's universally preferable behaviour theory covers this well. As such there is a massive difference between me killing a plant and you killing someone to solve a dispute. It is not arbitrary at all as far as I can see

Thanks guys, some really useful stuff

Been having some posting issues sorry for repeat messages. Think it's something to do with my device

Guys big thanks for all the responses, that has been really useful and a massive help. So I am taking away from this that violence is the deliberate initiation of force against another. When harm is not intended it is criminal/negligent but not violent. Each case would need to be dealt with by the local community rationally and on a case by case basis

Thanks dude. Where does pouring a dangerous chemical into the water supply instead of disposing safely and killing 10 people sit? Or the drunk driver killing a kid example I was given

Anyone? This seems pretty fundamental to the anarchy capitalist theory which had stood pretty solid for me this far

As usual I have been debating with a socialist but unusually this one has actually asked a good question and got me thinking (not such a bad thing) When I asked them whether they believed it was ok to use violence against non violent individuals they asked me to define violence. Their examples were a drunk driver killing a child, or someone burnin toxic chemicals and killing people or an employer knowingly selling dangerous goods or putting their employees at a fire risk. I found this interesting and had to think about it. My initial instincts are that these things are negligence rather than violence as the harm is not intended. This of course then opens up the question of how you deal with gross negligence without violence or the threat of violence. Anyone have any views?