Urbanvictim Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 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?
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence Seens to be a pretty solid way of looking at it. I'd say something like a drunk driver counts as violence. The person is aware that drinking and driving is wrong and increases danger/accounts for many deaths. They actively choose to pursue their own self interests at the expense of society. They've intentionally put themselves behind the wheel of a vehicle with a disregard for human life. The same thing applies for the other examples where people use their positions of power/influence or the cover of anonymity to do things they know will harm others for their personal benefit. You could classify accidents as being generally nonviolent. If your brakes failed on your car and it rolled into the street and caused an accident I think it's safe to say that could be considered negligent, but a non-violent mistake on someone's part. In order for an action to be violent then, there has to be some level of intent and the use of power involved.
Urbanvictim Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 Anyone? This seems pretty fundamental to the anarchy capitalist theory which had stood pretty solid for me this far
Blackfish64 Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Basically, there are two types of violence: anti-social violence, and asocial violence. Anti-social violence breaks down into the kinds of things the State does, like taxation, pulling you over and giving you speeding tickets, and forcing your children into compulsory education and forcing you to pay for it. This is the kind of violence where there is still negotiations going on, people are still talking to each other, there is still a social interaction. Asocial violence is the kind of violence during which there is no talking, no social interaction whatsoever. The woman has an axe and she's chopping up her husband, her prey; thugs have disarmed you, stole your wallet and your briefcase, and now they are stabbing you to death in an alley; or, as in war, where there is only the enemy in front of you-kill him or be killed.
Urbanvictim Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 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
PatrickC Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Defining violence is simple. It's the initiation of force. Self defence is merely retaliatory violence in response to that initiation. Drunk driving isn't the initiation of force. It is by virtue accidental. Having said that, it still comes with consequences as would any accidental death anyone caused. Such as a doctor that seems to lose an average of 70% of his patients on his operating table. Who's going to be operated by him with those statistics. Do you imagine that the drunk drivers community might decide he should have sanctions placed on him with the threat of ostracism (not force). This is a classic example of what leftists do to avoid being held culpable for condoning the initiation of violence. If they can justify violence against a drunk driver, then they can condone all manner of violence the state enjoys. It's similar to where Peter Joseph gets his claim for 'structural violence' from. 1
ParaSait Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 It's violence if attacking another person is the intent (usually as a means of gaining something at the other's expense). A drunk driver accidentally killing a child isn't violence. That doesn't mean he's not responsible, though. And dumping dangerous chemicals into the water supply is violence if the perpetrator is aware that it's hurting others (he gains something at the expense of others - cheap waste disposal at the expense of other people's health) 1
Blackfish64 Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 It's all in the intent, in the initiative. Initiative is life, itself. If your intent is to kill, it is asocial. If your intent is not to kill, anti-social. The drunk driver did not intent to kill. The pouring toxins in the water could swing either way. Again, it's all in the intent. If the toxins were poured meaning to kill someone(s), it is asocial. If they were poured by accident, or even not by accident, but not knowing the consequences of their actions, then its obviously anti-social. It might not even be anti-social. They might not have meant to do any harm at all. This does not excuse what they have done, but, again, did they set out to kill people? This is what the courts need to determine when they hear a murder case. What did the killer mean to do when he did the killing? Was he in imminent danger and had to kill to preserve his own life and/or the lives of others? Or did he kill just for the sheer joy of killing, just to see what it was like? Take the case of the hockey dads. Hockey dad #1 didn't like the way hockey dad # 2 was coaching the team, felt he wasn't giving his son enough time on the ice. They start to argue. Hockey dad #1 pushes hockey dad #2 backward, he smacks his head on the ice and dies. This is anti-social violence. He did not mean to kill. He meant only to posture and make a point and the posturing and pushing went too far. Then there's the three thugs who accosted a man, a doctor, in front of his house at knifepoint. They commanded him to give up his wallet and briefcase and watch. Doctor does as he is told. Once the goods are secured, the thugs take to stabbing the doctor to death on the sidewalk in front of his gate. Asocial violence all the way, using deadly weapons with intent to kill. 1
dsayers Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I asked them whether they believed it was ok to use violence against non violent individuals they asked me to define violence. Precise language could've avoided this. This is the reason people use the phrase initiate the use of force. Behaviors can be violent, not individuals. I think you meant to ask if he thought it was morally acceptable to initiate the use of force against another person. The problem is that in order for this question to be meaningful, you need to first establish with the person that people own themselves. If he's a socialist as you say, chances are his conclusion regarding self-ownership is unprincipled and will be interpreted by him differently in different circumstances. By the way, have you watched Stef's Bomb in the Brain series? 1 1
NotDarkYet Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Violence is short-hand for property rights violations: So, you only need to ask: -whose river? -what agreements existed regarding the use of the river? A free society is brilliant as solving issues like these. When things are OWNED, disputes like these can be resolved, or prevented entirely. A state doesn't solve the problem of the commons. It only makes them worse. 1
WasatchMan Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 vi·o·lencenoun \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\ : the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Violence is short-hand for property rights violations: I just wanted to add, I found understanding the concept of violence much easier when I realized that the root word for it is "violate". 1
Blackfish64 Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 I just wanted to add, I found understanding the concept of violence much easier when I realized that the root word for it is "violate". Bump.
Urbanvictim Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 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
Urbanvictim Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 Been having some posting issues sorry for repeat messages. Think it's something to do with my device
Blackfish64 Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Yes, in both cases, the dirty water and the drunk driver are violent acts. That was not the question. The question was, what kind of violent act was it?
Urbanvictim Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 Thanks guys, some really useful stuff
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Bump. Double Bump + Mind blow. It's like a secret hidden in plain sight, isn't it? Keeping the root word violate in mind, we quickly can also quickly come to the realization that the defensive use of force is not violence. Now I just need a single word that accurately describes "defensive use of force". :/
Urbanvictim Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 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
dsayers Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Keeping the root word violate in mind, we quickly can also quickly come to the realization that the defensive use of force is not violence. Now I just need a single word that accurately describes "defensive use of force". :/ That's the conclusion I've arrived at also, but not by that same method. As for what word to use, anything but retaliation. I hear people refer to defensive force as retaliation all the time. To me, retaliation means the initiation of the use of force. 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 You probably just didn't notice the approval message. Much to the chagrin of people donating and/or sharing sensitive info about themselves, this place has intentionally shifted to mitigating all incoming posts. It's really quite antithetical to discussion. 1
Urbanvictim Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 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
Blackfish64 Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 It's like a secret hidden in plain sight, isn't it? Keeping the root word violate in mind, we quickly can also quickly come to the realization that the defensive use of force is not violence. Now I just need a single word that accurately describes "defensive use of force". :/ Defensive use of force is in fact violence. We use violence to fight violence. We violate others who are trying to violate us. The difference is however that we use violence only in preserving our own life, property, i.e., to make the violence being used against us to stop. When we use violence to protect ourselves, we literally become what we are trying to stop. In self-protection, we not only violate our tormentors and perpetrators, but we violate ourselves in doing so. This is why violence is such an incredibly dangerous thing, such an intolerable thing. In killing my killer, I become a killer. Everyone who has committed an act of violence in his own defense defiles himself. Read the cases about people who have shot intruders who have broken into their homes. The dead body in the living room, the fact that they have just killed someone and witnessed the murder, the clean-up, the mess, the psychological turmoil. It can radically, psychologically, biologically change a person. Some people never recover from it. They are never the same. The fact is, when you use violence, even in self-defense, you become no better than the perpetrators. This is why I always train for only asocial violence. Anti-social violence? Get the hell out of there. Don't argue, don't escalate anything, give up the barstool and get the hell out. Even if when you are walking away and they are calling your mother a cunt, especially then, get out. Get out. Get out. Don't play with violence. Stop it before it starts. But when the time comes that you have no choice in the matter, it's kill or be killed, you must become a killer yourself, or you will perish. At any time is a simple choice we have to make. And we need to make up our minds about it before it happens. Train to live. Train to kill. And be done with it. Get the implement and keep it, if you choose to do so. In self defense, we sink to the hoodlum's level from a practical standpoint, but not from a moral standpoint so long as we stop when the threat is nullified. For example, if we stop a thief and have him handcuffed on the ground and we're waiting for the cops to come and pick him up, then we decide to torture the thief by ripping off an ear or poking out an eye, well, now we are no better than he is. We have sunk entirely below even his level. We have defiled ourselves. Violence defiles all concerned. There are no exceptions. I get horrified when I hear people speaking flippantly, "I would have no problem at all shooting a guy who did this or tried to do that or who broke into my house," etc. They have no idea what they are saying. Most people who talk like that don't even own a gun. It's ridiculous. For the sane and socialized individual, who keeps violence the furthest thing from his mind, violence is just the thing he is not likely to commit to, even in self-defense. Violence used in self-defense is most definitely violence. Happily so. Violence is the only choice we have in the matter. I train to choose it and to use it. 1
dsayers Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Defensive use of force is in fact violence. This is begging the question. The nature of this thread is exploring the definition of violence. Some people understand violence to be the initiation of the use of force. Some people understand violence to mean a large physical act. Which is more useful in helping others to understand property rights? Would it better help people to understand property rights if described a rape victim shooting their assailant as the settling of a debt voluntarily created by the aggressor? Would it better help people to understand the concept of liberty if we called both rape and the act of resisting rape violence? When you describe the act of resisting rape as violence, it's very hard to make the case that taxation is violence. 1
PatrickC Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Violence defiles all concerned. There are no exceptions. I get horrified when I hear people speaking flippantly, "I would have no problem at all shooting a guy who did this or tried to do that or who broke into my house," etc. They have no idea what they are saying. Most people who talk like that don't even own a gun. It's ridiculous. For the sane and socialized individual, who keeps violence the furthest thing from his mind, violence is just the thing he is not likely to commit to, even in self-defense.. I have to agree, self defence is the very last resort and comes with a very high cost attached to it. Albeit a cost that we're not necessarily culpable for. Still, I can't imagine anything more horrific than a dead body lying on my carpet that I just killed.
Blackfish64 Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 I have to agree, self defence is the very last resort and comes with a very high cost attached to it. Albeit a cost that we're not necessarily culpable for. Still, I can't imagine anything more horrific than a dead body lying on my carpet that I just killed. Absolutely right on. I don't want it, I don't need it. I know of no one who does. And the dead body lying on the carpet that you just killed is only the beginning... Now your victim's family wants you dead. Or maybe you will be fortunate and they want only to sue you. What a relief, eh? How much insurance do you have? Now, your anti-gun neighbors know you have a gun (well, not anymore, because the police took it away from you and will now leave you defenseless) and you will now be ostracized from the neighborhood after their relentless smear campaign. Your children, too. Was your victim a gang-banger? They want you dead, too. Now, you have to appear in court, possibly even be arrested, and have the humiliation of second-guessing yourself, and the terror of it being determined by others whether or not you are "guilty" of murder, or will be exonerated for the act of "self-defense". But you know only too well, deep in your heart and your mind, that you just killed another human being and there isn't anything you can do to take it back. You weren't "defending" anyone or anything in that moment, you were pulling a trigger, or bashing someone's brains in with the door-stop that was the only thing you could get your hands on to use to stop them from gang-raping your wife and daughter. Not to mention the fact that it took every ounce of energy you could possibly muster to even get yourself to do such a thing in the first place, the fact that you had no idea what you were doing or how to do it, but flew at your murderers and tormentors in a blind panic and rage, not knowing the slightest about the outcome. Were there children in the house? The wife? Yep, they get to see it all, too. They get to run the gauntlet with you. The lot of you might not feel like living in that house after all this violence. But that's OK, because by the time they get done suing you for everything you are worth, you won't have the house anymore anyway. I know, we're philosophers, and we want to find a way to peace through reason and rationality. Unfortunately, the rest of the world hasn't caught up with us yet. We have no choice but to deal with their violence. Philosophy ends where a gun, a club, a rock, a door-stop or a fist begin. Violence is not right or wrong. It just is. You can't reason with it or rationalize with it. The basic choice is to choose to use violence in order to stop violence, or perish. It's all up to you.
Urbanvictim Posted November 23, 2014 Author Posted November 23, 2014 Yes I completely agree. Violence is a last resort which is sometimes necessary but it is still wrong and corrupting
Urbanvictim Posted November 23, 2014 Author Posted November 23, 2014 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?
Zerubbabel Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 I just wanted to add, I found understanding the concept of violence much easier when I realized that the root word for it is "violate". This is technically not correct. Violate is a cognate, or related word to violence. Although the experts do not seem sure some think the shared root is from PIE root *weie- "to go after, pursue with vigor or desire," with noun derivatives meaning "force, desire" (see venison and Venus). The family of words that derive from this root include the ideas of force and desire. The initiation of force includes a desire and so etymologically qualifies as "violence." Reciprocal or reactive force does not include an element of desire and so is not "violence" but remains merely "force." .
Blackfish64 Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 This is technically not correct. Violate is a cognate, or related word to violence. Although the experts do not seem sure some think the shared root is from PIE root *weie- "to go after, pursue with vigor or desire," with noun derivatives meaning "force, desire" (see venison and Venus). The family of words that derive from this root include the ideas of force and desire. The initiation of force includes a desire and so etymologically qualifies as "violence." Reciprocal or reactive force does not include an element of desire and so is not "violence" but remains merely "force." . It's violence. Pure and simple. Any way one looks at it. To put it in your terms, the desire in reciprocal or reactive violence/force is the desire to stop the violence. My desire to stop, reciprocate violence is 100% full commitment. All bodyweight, desire, passion, force, thought, i.e., all of me goes in all the way. My desire is to cause violence, cause injury, and put me back in control of myself and my surroundings. And nothing else.
Blackfish64 Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 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? Avoiding the use of the word: violence-is the problem. The correct time to have a discussion about violence is before it happens. After it happens is too late. Again, we are sane and socialized, and the avoidance of the word and the subject, and certainly any acts of violence, are undesirable. It is because we are sane and socialized that we must look at the problem and address it before we can make it go away. We can't make it go away by pretending it has gone away. We cannot solve the problem, i.e., cannot make violence go away by distancing ourselves from it. We make it go away by getting close to it, by owning it, by knowing what it is and what can and cannot be done about it. We don't make cancer go away by not speaking the word: cancer. We don't kill ebola by not speaking the word: ebola. Violence, cancer, and viruses are all things human beings must deal with whether or not they like it. And just as a doctor kills cancer and viruses by getting close to them, by ruthless, objective observation of them, so, too, is violence done away with, eradicated. This attitude is typical of every newbie who steps on the mat to learn how to do violence/self-defense/self-protection. When it it his turn to draw blood, snap a spine, gouge out an eyeball, crack a femur, etc., he is taken aback by the very idea of it. Instead of stepping in close and getting the job done, he is distant in thought, feeling, and body. He wants nothing to do with it. He is sane and socialized. This is good. But it will not will not save his life or the lives of loved ones. He must get in close, cause damage, cause trauma, or it will be done to him instead. Again, this is the basic choice each of us must make. It matters not at all to me what you choose. I hope you do choose violence however. As for me, I have done so already. I am fully prepared to deal with violence should it come my way. That makes me free from ever having to think about violence again in my entire life. I am free of it. It no longer concerns me, and for all the correct reasons. Distance will not solve the problem of violence. Intimacy with violence will however, once and for all, solve the problem of violence for the individual. It is no different than seeking a good therapist. Violence, when properly practiced, is therapeutic, is understanding, is problem-solving, is peaceful and calming. I prove this to myself and others every time I step on the mats. No exceptions. When it comes to violence and understanding the problem of violence, society in general, mainsteam media, pretty much the entire "self-defense" industry is headed entirely in the wrong direction. Choose violence. Embrace it, learn it, know it, live it, get it out of your system once and for all, and your world will be a much better place. Just like therapy, one individual at a time.
Recommended Posts