The UK Libertarian

3 Comments on “You can’t fight violence with violence”

1. 
   Hexe Froschbein
   July 15th, 2010 at 8:05 am

   The article is complete twaddle.

   We have proportionally less violence worldwide and we no longer do many things that once were perfectly normal but that are nowadays are a no-no.

   We have more people, this is why the numbers have grown, but proportionally, we are in the most peaceful eras of all times.

   Bosnia(etc) in the scheme of things is tiny when compared to other history mass murders and mass violence.

   The other thing the article fails to mention is that violence is the only way to stop violence (by definition), from battlefield to schoolyard, what keeps more people in check is not their superior morals but the fear of what’ll happen if they try it on.

   A they say: an armed society is a polite society.

2. 
   Smoking Hot
   July 16th, 2010 at 10:14 am

   Except the history of the human race proves otherwise. Aggression is used to either take something away or stop something being taken away. ln other words, defend or attack.

   Non-aggressive ways may be tried first but if unresolved will end up with aggression. Humans are hard-wired for this.

3. 
   Davy
   July 20th, 2010 at 10:14 pm

   I don’t define self-defence as aggression.

   I’m not a pacifist (though I think it has a lot more value than people realise) I just don’t think you can get to peace through violence.

   I felt the article applied to the liberty movement because some people, when frustrated, can sometimes get violent thoughts about doing things to politicians/police etc. and I don’t think it’s a winning strategy.

   If we want a society where the initiation of force is seen, almost universally, as wrong, I doubt we’ll get there by initiating force.

   There might well come a breaking point, however, where people defend themselves on their doorsteps against tax collectors if need be.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code