thread: 2005-05-16 : Violence
On 2005-05-18, Valamir wrote:
Hey Ed, sure you're allowed to disagree, that's what discussion is about.
But if you've honestly reached a view at this point in your life that suggests that the freedoms you enjoy were not earned with violence. And if you honestly think you could continue to enjoy those freedoms in the future if it weren't for people being willing to commit violence on your behalf...please share because that seems rather fantastical to me.
The way I see it, every personal freedom we enjoy...including the freedom to have this discussion...was earned for us at the point of a gun by people willing to pull the trigger.
The only reason we continue to enjoy these freedoms is because there continues to be people out there whose job includes being willing to shoot and kill people who would seek to take those freedoms away. I really don't see any room to conclude anything different. I mean, how long do you think you'd hold on to the TV and stereo in your house and the car in your driveway if it wasn't for the threat of violence that the police bring to bear on would be perpetrators?
And it is a threat of violence that the law ultimately represents. Make no mistake. Every law in this country, indeed in every country I can think of, is ultimately backed by the threat of violence (some more vigorously than others). Break a law - get arrested. Resist arrest - get shot (or clubbed, or maced, or gassed, or tazered, or take your pick). Its a pretty basic progression.
So my position is quite simply, every benefit you enjoy from laws that protect you from the depredations of others directly represents the threat of violence inherent in law.
Civilization is built on law. Law functions only to the extent it can be enforced. The ultimate form of enforcement involves the willingness to use violence.
Therefor: Civilization exists on a foundation of constructively applied violence.
I can't think of any lasting sizeable civilization in the history of the world (west or east) for which that relationship does not hold.
Now all of that is tangental to Chris's topic (which is much more personal in nature). I bring it up only to demonstrate that violence is NOT automatically the bad thing some are suggesting it is, simply because it involves intentionally hurting other people.
