Taking away someone’s freedom is violence against them, though. If you lock somebody up, you’re being violent. You may not be physically harming them, but you’re using force to prevent their actions.
Moreover, the person only accedes to being locked up because of the implicit threat of violence.
If someone tried to lock me up but I knew that they could not use violence to compel me, I certainly wouldn’t go along with them.
It’s not violent. It’s intrusive, but those words are not interchangeable. And I didn’t take anyone’s freedom away. I told him I would call someone who could take it away. That is not violent. Threatening, sure…but not violent. The point is, the violence stopped without adding violence to the situation.
Really? You have so little regard for any sort of law that you wouldn’t willingly go unless you were threatened by violence? Huh.
Locking somebody else up certainly is violence, for the reasons that were given in this thread. And
And what are you saying here? That it’s wrong to inflict violence but not wrong to threaten violence? Or that it’s ok to tell somebody else to inflict violence instead. In other words, it would be wrong for me to beat you up and take your purse, but it would be fine for me to say, “Either give me your purse, or Ed over here will beat you up.”? That seems to be what you’re implying.
I consider myself a good person. If I did something “bad,” I probably had a very good reason for it and don’t think I deserve to go to jail. Therefor, I’m not going to given up my life just because someone else thinks I’m a meanie.
Most people think they have good reasons for the things they do, but of course they differ drastically. One person might hold up a liquor store to pay for a life saving operation for his child, another might do it to buy some shiny new rims for his car. Both probably don’t think they should go to jail.
It would be foolish to run a society where people only go to jail when they think they deserve it, because no one thinks they do. That’s why we have banded together and monopolized violence under a central authority to force people to follow the rules.
Of course, I’m sure that every time you’ve exceeded the speed limit you’ve gone straight to the police and confessed your crime because you have such respect for authority, right? Or maybe you had some good reason why you needed to be somewhere n a hurry…
Then how about the Italian attack on Ethiopia, then? Or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not threatening violence. I’m threatening to notify the authorities. No reasonable person would consider that an act of violence. I’m not telling anyone to commit an act of violence. Authority is not necessarily violent, as any parent can tell you. It is sometimes necessary in order to protect people from violence, but it does not need to meet violence with violence in order to be effective.
Really? You think you’d hole up in your house for any infraction you may have made and just shoot it out to the death? You wouldn’t be able to say to yourself that you took a chance and you lost and it’s time to pay the piper?
But what does this have to do with resorting to violence first? What bearing does this have on a person’s decision to choose non-violence over violence as an effective and ethical way to live one’s life?
When I’ve been pulled over for speeding, I didn’t respond by attacking the officer and forcing him to shoot me. People show up to court and go to jail under their own power all the time. Do you really believe they only go kicking and screaming?
I don’t have a particularly intense respect for authority. I break laws occasionally. I smoke pot. I’ve taken other illegal drugs. I’ve driven too fast. And no, I have never turned myself in for speeding. However, every time I was asked to show up to court for a speeding ticket, I showed up. No guns, no police dragging me out of my house. It’s called taking your lumps. But again, the subject is whether or not you must choose violence over non-violence in order to protect yourself or someone else from harm. The fact that people are telling you in this thread that they do it sort of makes any argument to the contrary rather meaningless.
Granted. But how much of this is because one learns not to go charging at police - which is something you might not learn if violence by police were prohibited. After all, we managed to stay out of a nuclear war thanks to the fear of the bomb, even though it wasn’t used in the Cold War.
Police can move with relative impunity even in dangerous neighborhoods. Isn’t this due to the knowledge that any attack on a cop would result in a gigantic, and violent, response?
You weren’t threatening violence, but you were benefiting from the fact this putz knew if the police did come, he would either have to give up peacefully or have a taser or gun pointed at him. Even criminals are smart enough to see the consequences of some of their actions.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I think you may be deliberately, and grossly, misinterpreting my argument. Of course I wouldn’t shoot it out over any infraction. That would be asinine. Even if I were a psychopath, I would refrain from that course of action because it would surely get me killed. What I’m trying to suggest is suppose a completely pacifist world. The police come up to my house and say they want to arrest me for smoking pot. I’m going to close my door and lock it, knowing that they have no means to force me to go along with them. I don’t think I did anything wrong, so I’m not going to go to jail just because someone asked nicely. In our current world, I would of course go along with them, because it would just make things much worse if I refused.
This is a pretty blatant strawman. I never said anything even slightly advocating treating violence as a first resort. Please pay closer attention to my arguments.
People go of their own power because they are aware what will happen if they do not. If they refuse, the police are not going to just let them walk away with no repercussions.
You’ve gotten a bit under my skin, I admit, not because I think we disagree that much, but because I think we actually mostly agree, except that you’ve chosen to wildly misinterpret my argument. I’m not a violent person. Aside from some very minor scuffles as a child, I have neither been in an altercation nor threatened anyone with violence. However, I acknowledge that there are extreme situations in which violence may be justified. I am not arguing that when my neighbor’s dog is barking too loud that I should go over with a gun, but if I believe he is imminently about to murder his wife, then forcibly stopping him would be justified.
You said you have no great respect for authority. Suppose for a second that you knew they could do nothing to you. If you don’t pay that speeding ticket, nothing bad will happen. If you don’t show up to that court date, they can’t do anything. Heck, if you’re in court and the jury returns a guilty verdict sentencing you to jail for your drug possession, you can walk right out the door and no one will stop you. Do you honestly expect me to believe you would just go along? No, you’d ignore them. The thing is, you go along with them because they can make things worse for you if you refuse. And if you refuse long enough, they’re going to MAKE you do what they want.
Living life by nonviolent principles is great. I live that way and advocate others do as well. However, when people start saying things like you should let people rob, rape, and murder others because stopping them would be just as bad, well, that’s just asinine.
Yes it is. At its base, authority relies on the violence or the fear of violence. Your child obeys you because he or she fears your displeasure or the punishment he or she will receive if he or she disobeys. That’s why people obey others…the hope of reward or the fear of punishment.
Regards,
Shodan
All I can say is, in response to NoJustice, I’d really like to know where he is, as then I can go in his house, plop in his couch, eat his food and use his money, and effectively have no repercussions except for hearing near-constant sermons on my “inner goodness” I neither have the compunction to follow or act upon.
I’m not a violent person, but this is due to following the course of most benefit to myself (of which not resorting to violence is often, but not always, the appropriate action), and a person who willingly makes their own resources so open to others is basically announcing “Hey! Free stuff over here!”. Why should I care about him?
This is of course assuming said poster does not go to some external authority to somehow force my compliance to his morality (the cops, or other people who *are *willing to use violence) - of which he stated he wont.
I’m still confused as to how calling the cops can be reconciled with absolute pacifism. While most people will comply with the police, that’s because there’s really no percentage in doing otherwise. For the minority who don’t, the police will use violence to force them to comply, from wrestling them to the ground, to nightsticks, pepper spray, tasers, and culminating in guns.
In an uncivilized society, smaller and weaker people rely on their clan or tribe to protect them from aggressors. In a civilized society we rely on the law and its agents. But neither strategy is compatible with the pacifism that Ghandi and others advocated, which I agree is hopelessly unrealistic, and will usually cause more harm than good. (Usually, because there are some situations where peaceful civil disobedience and a disciplined refusal to use violence is an effective tactic.)
Again, being a pacifist is different from being a generally peaceful person. It’s a radical position, and it shouldn’t be confused with the wise policy of calling the police to deal with criminals and violent people.
Or rather, complying with the police is most often the safest course of action in insuring your own benefit (as if you don’t, things are most likely going to get more unpleasant for you than if you did).
If police had absolutely no power of enforcement, if they can proclaim jail times and slap fines but will do absolutely nothing to back it up if I refuse, I will in fact ignore them. Why should I comply?