Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="sienna" data-source="post: 2654538" data-attributes="member: 94690">You write very well. &quot;If you don&#039;t stand for something, you&#039;ll fall for anything.&quot;We have to be clear about the ethics and the use of violence or threats. The question is, when are they justified, and when not?The fact that there have been plenty of killers, and that armies have killed lots of people, is of course no justification at all. You have to decide for yourself. I can see how it is a justification of violence that someone else is attacking or intending to attack you or anyone. But is it justified to attack or threaten to attack other people:a) because you think it would be a good idea?b) because you think it would make for a better society?c) because you would like to take the fruits of their labour without their consent?d) just to get what you want? What about the rights of other people to be free of your threats and violence?The state is, by definition, the group in society who claim a legal monopoly on the use of unprovoked aggressive violence. But they don&#039;t call it that. They call it &quot;policy&quot;. Same thing. Any time you advocate the use of the state for any purpose other than to repel the aggression of someone else, you are advocating aggression.&nbsp; Whether a majority vote for it does not make it *ethically* justified. Nor does it mean the practical outcome is better. *If* the message behind Che&#039;s violence was itself a peaceful message, that might be different. But it wasn&#039;t. Advocating *any* use of government, other than to stop aggressive violence against the person or property of others, makes the same mistake. The question is whether you believe in using violence or threats to force people to sacrifice their peaceful values, to make them obey their political overlords; or believe in freedom. At present you believe in the former. I hope your wisdom will grow to match your intelligence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="sienna, post: 2654538, member: 94690"] You write very well. "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." We have to be clear about the ethics and the use of violence or threats. The question is, when are they justified, and when not? The fact that there have been plenty of killers, and that armies have killed lots of people, is of course no justification at all. You have to decide for yourself. I can see how it is a justification of violence that someone else is attacking or intending to attack you or anyone. But is it justified to attack or threaten to attack other people: a) because you think it would be a good idea? b) because you think it would make for a better society? c) because you would like to take the fruits of their labour without their consent? d) just to get what you want? What about the rights of other people to be free of your threats and violence? The state is, by definition, the group in society who claim a legal monopoly on the use of unprovoked aggressive violence. But they don't call it that. They call it "policy". Same thing. Any time you advocate the use of the state for any purpose other than to repel the aggression of someone else, you are advocating aggression. Whether a majority vote for it does not make it *ethically* justified. Nor does it mean the practical outcome is better. *If* the message behind Che's violence was itself a peaceful message, that might be different. But it wasn't. Advocating *any* use of government, other than to stop aggressive violence against the person or property of others, makes the same mistake. The question is whether you believe in using violence or threats to force people to sacrifice their peaceful values, to make them obey their political overlords; or believe in freedom. At present you believe in the former. I hope your wisdom will grow to match your intelligence. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…