I support the use of violence

[Mark Carolus]

I support the use of violence against you.
If you put others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I'm pretty sure Stefan would agree with that himself, but the problem with agreeing to that, is that as soon as you do, the next step in the conversation would be: what/which behaviour is it that puts others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally?

As soon as the conversation reaches that point, you'll have an argument for a governing body, whatever form that might take.

[WasatchMan]

Its called self defense which is completely ethical and transferable.... Yes there are fuzzy boundaries, but such is reality.

[Kevin Beal]

If the problem is putting other people in harms way, then giving a group of people the automatic right to initiate violence in order to solve that problem is an immediate logic fail.

 

Violence = bad & violence = good

 

I'm much more interested in preventative measures against violence and immorality rather than guillotine–after the fact "solutions". Police do not prevent crime. Adding more laws or funding to the police force doesn't reduce the immorality in society.

 

The anarchic solution would be to allow the free market to solve issues around violence and protection of people and property. The free market solution that will always be the most cost effective is whatever solution can prevent it the earliest. Prisons are just about the most expensive way conceivable to deal with criminals, and they never seem to capture the biggest white collar criminals, and instead opt for dissidents and marijuana smokers.

 

This isn't for Mark's sake. He never listens anyway. He's comes once every couple of months to post some "gotcha anarchists!" message which has already been addressed in the first few podcasts in the series, 9 years ago. Suggesting to me that he hasn't really listened to the show much.

[MrCapitalism]

I support the use of violence against you.

If you put others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

I'm pretty sure Stefan would agree with that himself, but the problem with agreeing to that, is that as soon as you do, the next step in the conversation would be: what/which behaviour is it that puts others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally?

 

As soon as the conversation reaches that point, you'll have an argument for a governing body, whatever form that might take.

I don't really find any problem with what you wrote. I guess the question is; does the governing body violate the principle which it was created to uphold?

[Ken Cotton]

I have to agree that I endorse limited acts of violence. Violence is neither good nor bad, it is simply a fact of life. All animate objects display varying degrees of violence. Even the most puritan vegan in the world routinely kills other living things simply by existing. Human lives are objectively no more valuable than any other living creature. It doesn't seem to stand to reason to me to put violence into a special box and try to stow it away.

 

Philosophically, I am deeply confused as to where the idea of non-violence comes from. It seems completely arbitrary.

[WasatchMan]

 

Philosophically, I am deeply confused as to where the idea of non-violence comes from. It seems completely arbitrary.

 

IMO the confusion is coming from how you are wording the question.  Violence as such has no ethical position.  The philosophical position is that the initiation of violence is immoral.

[yagami]

I support the use of violence against you.

If you put others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

I'm pretty sure Stefan would agree with that himself, but the problem with agreeing to that, is that as soon as you do, the next step in the conversation would be: what/which behaviour is it that puts others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally?

 

As soon as the conversation reaches that point, you'll have an argument for a governing body, whatever form that might take.

Force is not evil. The initiation of force and force itself are two completely different things. So lets make sure when you use the word force you are clear about which one you are referring to.

[Ken Cotton]

The initiation of violence is universal. From eating plants, tilling land, breathing, etc. All living creatures initiate violence against other living creatures in order to reproduce. That is the one constant among living beings. At least as far as reason and logic is concerned, the suggestion that human on human violence is immoral is absolutely arbitrary. There's nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence against another person. Whether that violence is physical, emotional, or intellectual, superiority is extremely attractive. It goes against the very core of our reproductive reality to oppose acts of domination and subjugation.

[PatrickC]

Yes, there isn't much confusing about 'the initiation of violence'. Unless of course, people have done it over you whilst expressing the same 'obfuscating' caveats. Agressing against those that initiate violence doesn't require a great 'moral' conundrum.

[WasatchMan]

The initiation of violence is universal. From eating plants, tilling land, breathing, etc. All living creatures initiate violence against other living creatures in order to reproduce. That is the one constant among living beings. At least as far as reason and logic is concerned, the suggestion that human on human violence is immoral is absolutely arbitrary. There's nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence against another person. Whether that violence is physical, emotional, or intellectual, superiority is extremely attractive. It goes against the very core of our reproductive reality to oppose acts of domination and subjugation.

 

How is the human on human violence arbitrary?  Humans are the only animal capable of having their behavior subject to the law of non-contradiction.  The law of non-contradiction would factual support that a human cannot claim the right not to be subjected to the initiation of violence at the same time as claiming the right to initiate force against others. 

[Kevin Beal]

There's nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence against another person.

What would it mean to say that something factual supports violations of the NAP being wrong?

 

I mean, it's not like 1 + 1 equalling 2 is a factual matter. Whether or not facts support it (whatever that would even mean) doesn't make it true or false. It's true by definition.

 

And how do you know that there is "nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence"? Is this through an analysis of facts, or did you figure this out a priori?

 

I thought I knew what morality was, but when I read your responses, I don't even know what the debate is supposed to be about. All of a sudden, I'm violently aggressing dirt and flowers, and it's a matter of empirical observation that this or that is immoral, now.

 

Are you aware that it would come off as just a little strange comparing tilling the soil to violently attacking another human being?

[dsayers]

I support the use of violence against you.

If you put others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

Was your use of punctuation here deliberate? The first sentence is an absolute. The second sentence is a conditional without an attached response. I can only assume that you meant to say that you find that the use of force in response to the initiation of the use of force to be valid, which is superfluous. It's like creating a thread to say that if I lend you money, I expect to be repaid even though being repaid is an included component of the word lend.

 

It would also help to define terms. Some people interpret the word violence as the initiation of the use of force. Others interpret is as physical force. Given people's ingrained response that violence is bad, I prefer the definition of initiation of the use of force since that fits.

 

Somebody who initiates the use of force is voluntarily creating a debt. Defensive force is the settling of that debt. In other words, to point out that the initiation of the use of force is immoral is to denote that defensive force is valid. Just as the word lend denotes the debt being repaid.

 

Violence is neither good nor bad, it is simply a fact of life.

 

This is begging the question.

 

Human lives are objectively no more valuable than any other living creature.

 

Superfluous. Value is inherently subjective, therefore NOTHING can be objectively more/less valuable.

 

Philosophically, I am deeply confused as to where the idea of non-violence comes from.

 

It comes from violence. Just as non-shoe comes from shoe. To identify an object as a shoe is to identify that objects have the capacity to be not shoes. I'm confused by your confusion.

 

At least as far as reason and logic is concerned, the suggestion that human on human violence is immoral is absolutely arbitrary.

 

Your complete lack of curiosity is noted, but I will debunk this for the benefit of others. You're conflating the capacity for reason with biological imperative. The differentiation IS the capacity for reason, making your claim of arbitrary false.

[J. D. Stembal]

The initiation of violence is universal. From eating plants, tilling land, breathing, etc. All living creatures initiate violence against other living creatures in order to reproduce. That is the one constant among living beings. At least as far as reason and logic is concerned, the suggestion that human on human violence is immoral is absolutely arbitrary. There's nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence against another person. Whether that violence is physical, emotional, or intellectual, superiority is extremely attractive. It goes against the very core of our reproductive reality to oppose acts of domination and subjugation.

 

Are you against the human consumption of other animals? Would you be opposed if someone else decided to eat or rape you in order to increase their reproductive prospects?

[Ken Cotton]

How is the human on human violence arbitrary?  Humans are the only animal capable of having their behavior subject to the law of non-contradiction.  The law of non-contradiction would factual support that a human cannot claim the right not to be subjected to the initiation of violence at the same time as claiming the right to initiate force against others. 

 

Correct. You can claim an aversion toward violence done against you, but you can't claim that there aren't grounds for it. Everyone who engages in win-lose contests completely understands that they could be on the losing end, which is what drives the competition. This is what lends people to a cynical view of human rights or war crimes in a world where human rights are routinely violated and war crimes routinely ignored. They are both fictional constructs with no material basis.

 

 

Are you aware that it would come off as just a little strange comparing tilling the soil to violently attacking another human being?

 

I'm aware, but objectively there is no real difference. The only difference between killing/displacing insects and plants versus human beings is an entirely emotional and arbitrary attachment toward human beings. It becomes a simple math equation once you remove the chemicals responsible for skewing the view. In a more objective view however, violently attacking a human being is no different from violently attacking anything else. All a human being does is factor in additional sociological consequences.

 

 

Are you against the human consumption of other animals? Would you be opposed if someone else decided to eat or rape you in order to increase their reproductive prospects?

 

No. Superior creatures consume inferior creatures, or form parasitic/mutually beneficial arrangements with them. I would oppose someone trying to eat or rape me through the use of violence. If I were subjugated, my feelings or decisions would be moot. I can be as opposed to being eaten as I want, and if a bear still mauls me, that's not going to stop the process of it eating me.

[WasatchMan]

Correct. You can claim an aversion toward violence done against you, but you can't claim that there aren't grounds for it. Everyone who engages in win-lose contests completely understands that they could be on the losing end, which is what drives the competition. This is what lends people to a cynical view of human rights or war crimes in a world where human rights are routinely violated and war crimes routinely ignored. They are both fictional constructs with no material basis.

 

Its sounds like you are talking about pragmatic cost-benefit calculations people will make when trying to rationalize their decisions.  I am saying that the act of initiating force against another human is not ethical human behavior.  It is not arbitrary because we are talking about universal human behavior (ethics).  I would be interested in hearing how you think you could create a universal ethical system for human behavior that does not claim that the initiation of force against other (humans) is unethical. I am really not interested in subjectivism or moral relativism, especially in the context of a philosophy forum. 

[J. D. Stembal]

 

No. Superior creatures consume inferior creatures, or form parasitic/mutually beneficial arrangements with them. I would oppose someone trying to eat or rape me through the use of violence. If I were subjugated, my feelings or decisions would be moot. I can be as opposed to being eaten as I want, and if a bear still mauls me, that's not going to stop the process of it eating me.

 

Since you would oppose someone eating you who wanted to eat you, then you don't support the initiation of violence being universal. If you were arguing that the initiation of violence is universal, then you would willingly allow bears to eat you.

[Ken Cotton]

Since you would oppose someone eating you who wanted to eat you, then you don't support the initiation of violence being universal. If you were arguing that the initiation of violence is universal, then you would willingly allow bears to eat you.

100% incorrect. I support violent competition. A fist fight or armed fight where you kill your opponent is as equally valid a form of conflict resolution as intellectually beating someone. Society has insitutionalized and formalized violence into the state and sport not because we believe at our core that violence has no place, but because we've established a working model where we can express violence in that method.

 

I support violence as a final means of arbitration. I simply aim to win.

[Mark Carolus]

The argument is made in relation to the video of Stefan, in which he advocates defooing friends and family if they "support you getting shot" I'm sure you know which video that is.

 

I have nothing against defooing, so please don't equate me with one of those who attack Stefan on that.

 

Here's a few situations in which I would support the use of violence (violence within reason of course)

Drunk driving.

Excessive speeding where it clearly isn't appropriate (obviously doing 200 MPH on route 66 doesn't really hurt a fly, figuratively).

Leaving your used heroin needles in a children's playground.

[Ken Cotton]

Its sounds like you are talking about pragmatic cost-benefit calculations people will make when trying to rationalize their decisions.  I am saying that the act of initiating force against another human is not ethical human behavior.  It is not arbitrary because we are talking about universal human behavior (ethics).  I would be interested in hearing how you think you could create a universal ethical system for human behavior that does not claim that the initiation of force against other (humans) is unethical. I am really not interested in subjectivism or moral relativism, especially in the context of a philosophy forum. 

 

You can have a universal system that doesn't focus on making everyone happy. Cancer is effectively a universal reality for human beings, but that doesn't make everyone happy - it makes everyone equally unhappy. The idea that there are times where you can use violence as the final arbiter of disagreement doesn't make everyone happy, it makes everyone equally unhappy. I'd like to live in a world where that isn't the case, but that isn't the world we live in.

[J. D. Stembal]

100% incorrect. I support violent competition. A fist fight or armed fight where you kill your opponent is as equally valid a form of conflict resolution as intellectually beating someone. Society has insitutionalized and formalized violence into the state and sport not because we believe at our core that violence has no place, but because we've established a working model where we can express violence in that method.

 

I support violence as a final means of arbitration. I simply aim to win.

 

If you win, and someone else loses, this violence cannot be universalized. It's a contradiction.

[Ken Cotton]

If you win, and someone else loses, this violence cannot be universalized. It's a contradiction.

It is universal, because I have an equal chance of being on the receiving end of the violence.

 

An acceptance of violence as a means to an end is like playing russian roulette with someone. You both universally concede to the parameters of the game and have a roughly equal chance of winning or losing it. Only one of you will win, and you both hope that it's you, but there's nothing contradictory about that. A result doesn't have to fulfil the desires of everyone. Violence by its definition only rewards winners.

[WasatchMan]

You can have a universal system that doesn't focus on making everyone happy. Cancer is effectively a universal reality for human beings, but that doesn't make everyone happy - it makes everyone equally unhappy. The idea that there are times where you can use violence as the final arbiter of disagreement doesn't make everyone happy, it makes everyone equally unhappy. I'd like to live in a world where that isn't the case, but that isn't the world we live in.

 

ummm... When did happiness become the operative term in this discussion? I sure don't use it as the standards for ethical principles.

[dsayers]

Ironclad, have you examined why it is that you need for violence to be righteous? I ask because this is a philosophy forum. Saying that you CAN kill others and CAN be killed by others doesn't really help bring us closer to understanding what virtue and ethics are.

 

If you initiate the use of force, you are impairing your ability to survive by invoking the ire of something that could kill you. We have the capacity for reason, which includes our ability to override our biological imperative to survive in order to seek solutions that involve less risk/effort.

[Ken Cotton]

A bomb went off in my brain and now I view the world like I'm one of the people in the Matrix, watching all the other people run their lives in blissful ignorance. They go around seemingly completely unaware of the insidious and violent nature underlying their world. It's things like UPB and NAP that make their eyes glaze over and leave them susceptible to exploitation. Dark powers utilize their naivety to maneuver for increased social decadence and inevitable collusion in the creation of a New World Order.

 

As a fascist I am directly opposed to globalist pacifism. I have seen the true face of unchecked freedom and it cannot be permitted to exist. Virtue and ethics are incredibly important in the creation of a pure state, but they must be tempered by reality. Humanity cannot afford to lose its edge and become fully domesticated. The state must initiate force against the incapable or unwilling in order to mobilize the masses in the the pursuit of a penultimate goal - the creation of a stable geopolitical region in which the people can then flourish.

[yagami]

A bomb went off in my brain and now I view the world like I'm one of the people in the Matrix, watching all the other people run their lives in blissful ignorance. They go around seemingly completely unaware of the insidious and violent nature underlying their world. It's things like UPB and NAP that make their eyes glaze over and leave them susceptible to exploitation. Dark powers utilize their naivety to maneuver for increased social decadence and inevitable collusion in the creation of a New World Order.

 

As a fascist I am directly opposed to globalist pacifism. I have seen the true face of unchecked freedom and it cannot be permitted to exist. Virtue and ethics are incredibly important in the creation of a pure state, but they must be tempered by reality. Humanity cannot afford to lose its edge and become fully domesticated. The state must initiate force against the incapable or unwilling in order to mobilize the masses in the the pursuit of a penultimate goal - the creation of a stable geopolitical region in which the people can then flourish.

First off I wanna say the post you just posted probably will get down voted and I'm against people doing that. If someone says something you disagree with that is not grounds for down voting someone. The down vote is to be used for people being abusive. You have gotten lots of down votes and I dont think they are called for.

 

Second please point to the point in time that you have witness that you call "unchecked freedom". And please provide evidence or an explanation of how the freedom alone lead to a negative outcome.

 

Thanks.

[Ken Cotton]

Thanks. I appreciate that. I find civil conversation on points of disagreement to be generally productive and interesting. I am here primarily to learn after all.

 

My personal experience with freedom comes in two major arcs I would say. The first arc is in personal freedom or household freedom. The inability of social services or police officers to make meaningful investigations into private property enabled people to abuse me and others. Due to the government being legally unable to do much about my situation it continued longer then it had to, and a variety of tactics could be utilized to prolong it. In this way I was shown the inherent weaknesses of the present system and some of the potential side effects of freedom.

 

The second major arc of freedom I've seen has been growing up with the internet moving into the mainstream. I was born in 1987, so during my teenage years I was active when cable internet emerged and it became more common. Growing up with the internet in a form more closely related to its current incarnation I have seen the wide range of effects that occurs with anonymity. Anonymity is a form of freedom that generally leads to negative results. Anonymity encourages or allows for increasingly bad behaviour, which is supported by a variety of psychiatric studies. Anonymity, a form of freedom, divorces people from accountability and facing the consequences of their actions. By removing the negative sensation linked to inflammatory or hateful speech  ( misogynistic, uneccessarily violent, etc ) of public shame or ridicule you remove one of the main barriers to those actions.

 

 

With the second issue specifically, I am driven to support the nationalization of the internet and the creation of WebIDs. A WebID would function like any other form of identification in that it would link the real person using the internet to their online activities. Websites would be forced to collaborate in using this system, as would ISPs and programmers. The use of violence would force the internet and computer community to construct the necessary framework, enforce it, and put internet users into it. The result? An internet where people do not have the shield of anonymity, and thus a drastic reduction in death threats, misogyny, unecessary violence, child pornography distribution, etc. However, this security apparatus would never be able to exist without the underlying threat of violence keeping people in line, whether that's something simple like a fine or something more intense like jail time.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It is universal, because I have an equal chance of being on the receiving end of the violence.

 

An acceptance of violence as a means to an end is like playing russian roulette with someone. You both universally concede to the parameters of the game and have a roughly equal chance of winning or losing it. Only one of you will win, and you both hope that it's you, but there's nothing contradictory about that. A result doesn't have to fulfil the desires of everyone. Violence by its definition only rewards winners.

But others do not concede. You arbitrarily claim a right to initiate force on others while denying others that same right. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The second major arc of freedom I've seen has been growing up with the internet moving into the mainstream. I was born in 1987, so during my teenage years I was active when cable internet emerged and it became more common. Growing up with the internet in a form more closely related to its current incarnation I have seen the wide range of effects that occurs with anonymity. Anonymity is a form of freedom that generally leads to negative results. Anonymity encourages or allows for increasingly bad behaviour, which is supported by a variety of psychiatric studies. Anonymity, a form of freedom, divorces people from accountability and facing the consequences of their actions. By removing the negative sensation linked to inflammatory or hateful speech  ( misogynistic, uneccessarily violent, etc ) of public shame or ridicule you remove one of the main barriers to those actions.

 

 

With the second issue specifically, I am driven to support the nationalization of the internet and the creation of WebIDs. A WebID would function like any other form of identification in that it would link the real person using the internet to their online activities. Websites would be forced to collaborate in using this system, as would ISPs and programmers. The use of violence would force the internet and computer community to construct the necessary framework, enforce it, and put internet users into it. The result? An internet where people do not have the shield of anonymity, and thus a drastic reduction in death threats, misogyny, unecessary violence, child pornography distribution, etc. However, this security apparatus would never be able to exist without the underlying threat of violence keeping people in line, whether that's something simple like a fine or something more intense like jail time.

Why are you bothering to make justifications if you're going to do it anyway? It's like saying "Will you have sex with me because of X,Y and Z reasons?" and then adding "I'm going to rape you anyway".

I support the use of violence against you.

If you put others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

I'm pretty sure Stefan would agree with that himself, but the problem with agreeing to that, is that as soon as you do, the next step in the conversation would be: what/which behaviour is it that puts others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally?

 

As soon as the conversation reaches that point, you'll have an argument for a governing body, whatever form that might take.

I don't think Stef would agree with that statement. I am pretty certain he would ask you to define "harms way" FIRST.

[Kevin Beal]

With the second issue specifically, I am driven to support the nationalization of the internet and the creation of WebIDs. A WebID would function like any other form of identification in that it would link the real person using the internet to their online activities.

Why do you use a pseudonym then?

[Ken Cotton]

Why do you use a pseudonym then?

I apologize, my name is Ken Cotton. I use my likeness as my avatar and its plainly available on other sources like my main email address and blog. It's a force of habit to use usernames instead of my real name on the internet. I think that's the case for most people, and something I am interested in working against.

[Ken Cotton]

ummm... When did happiness become the operative term in this discussion? I sure don't use it as the standards for ethical principles.

 

Ethics completely revolves around maximizing human happiness. It's unethical to kill someone because it makes someone else feel sad, upset, hurt, angry, etc. There is nothing unethical about killing someone if it doesn't make anyone unhappy, the same way there is nothing unethical about destroying a chair. People throughout history have been able to kill other people by dehumanizing them, which makes killing them ethical. There's also nothing unethical about vandalism unless the vandalism makes someone unhappy.

 

This has actually been explored in art many times. You can see written work and movies about people who can't die or people who regenerate doing completely horrible things to one another. If you arm could regenerate very quickly and losing it wouldn't make you unhappy, it could become ethical for someone to cut your arm off. If having your genitals cut off was just a minor inconvenience, it could become increasingly ethical for someone to cut your genitals off. We don't condemn people who bump into each other for assault because it is incredibly minor and doesn't generally lead to unhappiness, even though the principle of force against a person without consent has technically occurred.

 

Genocide for example has been viewed as ethical in many societies. It is only by making minorities in the society or majorities in other societies unhappy that it gains a label of unethical. There's nothing inherently unethical about genocide or extinction, because ethics are wholly subjective, and that subjectivity basically amounts to the total of happiness/unhappineess generated by actions.

[luxfelix]

The second major arc of freedom I've seen has been growing up with the internet moving into the mainstream. I was born in 1987, so during my teenage years I was active when cable internet emerged and it became more common. Growing up with the internet in a form more closely related to its current incarnation I have seen the wide range of effects that occurs with anonymity. Anonymity is a form of freedom that generally leads to negative results. Anonymity encourages or allows for increasingly bad behaviour, which is supported by a variety of psychiatric studies. Anonymity, a form of freedom, divorces people from accountability and facing the consequences of their actions. By removing the negative sensation linked to inflammatory or hateful speech  ( misogynistic, uneccessarily violent, etc ) of public shame or ridicule you remove one of the main barriers to those actions.

 

Possible free-market solution to anonymity/troll problems: vid01

 

Plus, as Kevin Beal pointed out, many people here use pseudonyms while retaining decorum.

[J. D. Stembal]

There's nothing inherently unethical about genocide or extinction, because ethics are wholly subjective, and that subjectivity basically amounts to the total of happiness/unhappineess generated by actions.

 

True or false: the Cultural Revolution was a blessed event where 30 million people lost their lives for the happiness of others.

[Ken Cotton]

Possible free-market solution to anonymity/troll problems: vid01

 

Plus, as Kevin Beal pointed out, many people here use pseudonyms while retaining decorum.

 

The Tribunal explicitly relies on force. There's still a governing body behind the tribunal. Also, you need to have an ID in order for the entire system to work. If you can just freely make unlimited accounts then the tribunal will not be very effective. And... well as a League of Legends player I can say there are still enough trolls on it to ruin a game. Fairly often. lol

[Ken Cotton]

True or false: the Cultural Revolution was a blessed event where 30 million people lost their lives for the happiness of others.

 

I don't know. What was the end result? Were the 30 million people guilty? Are people happier now? 30 million doesn't mean anything to me. There's no appreciable difference between 3 and 30,000,000 except logistics.