Should protesters respect private property?

[Russell Kanning]

I did not read all of 12.  It became tedious after awhile. I can only read so much of government flogging before I become quite certain it would be justice to shoot the floggers.  I read 1/3 of twelve and skimmed the last 2/3 looking for a single explanation of why it would be unjust for the peasants to defend themselves.  Does Tolstoy intend that to be taken on faith?

No .... he wrote a very logical defense of his position .... but you have to actually read the book. It is not long ... like War and Peace. If you really want to know what people like Caleb and I are talking about ... maybe you could take the time to read the whole book. If you can't without wanting to start killing people (or actually just dream about it while cleaning your weapon), then how can you learn about it?

You obviously are not yet ready. Maybe we can talk about this later.

[MaineShark]

Ironically, I have been accused by others of wanting to zero out the violence so as to make things easier for myself to decide. And yet, with the other side of their mouth they attack me for using my mind to determine how to respond to a particular person.

There's no irony there.  One is what you say.  The other is what you do.  There is intense hypocrisy on your part, but no irony on mine.

Also, my views on property differ from yours, so I wouldn't presume to include a strict respect for property in my pacifism.

That's not for you to decide.  Hitler had a different view on the humanity of Jews.  Doesn't mean that his sick and twisted opinions can over-ride someone else's rights.

Joe

[Eli]

I did not read all of 12.  It became tedious after awhile. I can only read so much of government flogging before I become quite certain it would be justice to shoot the floggers.  I read 1/3 of twelve and skimmed the last 2/3 looking for a single explanation of why it would be unjust for the peasants to defend themselves.  Does Tolstoy intend that to be taken on faith?

No .... he wrote a very logical defense of his position .... but you have to actually read the book. It is not long ... like War and Peace. If you really want to know what people like Caleb and I are talking about ... maybe you could take the time to read the whole book. If you can't without wanting to start killing people (or actually just dream about it while cleaning your weapon), then how can you learn about it?

You obviously are not yet ready. Maybe we can talk about this later.

I plan to read it.  It's on my todo list.  right after cleaning the gun.  I didn't say I want to shoot anyone Russell.  I said it would be justice.

[Caleb]

Caleb,

I did not read all of 12.  It became tedious after awhile. I can only read so much of government flogging before I become quite certain it would be justice to shoot the floggers.

It's a shame you didn't finish reading. Tolstoy goes on to explain what inevitably happens when the peasants do resist (as they often did): inevitably, they are beat down and their final position is worse than the first. He goes on to show how the current system of violence and retribution is always used to support the status quo, how its use always benefits the strong at the expense of the weak, and furthermore that it is, by its very nature, the way that it must be. In the rare event that the weak overcome the powerful through brute strength, they quickly become the very evil they hated. (Think French Revolution.) It's like the Ring of Power, "In place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen. Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morning. Treacherous as the Sea. Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair." One evil replaces another, but evil cannot conquer evil.

That may all be well and good for a christian, but for me it is unconvincing, as Christ's Sermon was also unconvincing.  Nonresistance to evil only results in the triumph of evil, and the death of good but deluded people.

Chesterton was fond of saying that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried. As I look on the horrible state of the world, and realize the high value that our society places on "defense", and the disdain that we have for pacifism, I have to wonder how much different the world might be if we would only give peace a chance.

I can't love the whole world.  I can't love the soldier that comes to slay my village.  It is too much to ask.

Tolstoy actually makes this point for you. He actually spends a lot of his book explaining how his belief is different than the conception of life that says, "love the whole world", which as you notice is not possible because I do not know everyone in the world. The divine conception of life sees value in the very act of loving, and the object of this love is first God, then myself, then others as I encounter them because I have come to know love. This is God working in our life, (or if you prefer to speak less religiously, it is the archetype of love, influencing our behavior and reworking us from the inside.)

Even if I can love them, love doesn't necessarily demand nonresistance.

No! It doesn't! this is the very point I am trying to make. But it does demand that we do no harm to them, and that isn't the sort of thing we can try to find a loophole for, because the very act of seeking the loophole betrays the fact that the love is truly not in our heart.

If that soldier comes to my home I don't let him kill my children, my wife, myself, then go on to do the same to my neighbors, and survive to spread him disease of immorality and statism, do I?  That is what pacifism demands.  It demands that I stand by as he stomps my dog, kills my children, rapes my wife and then goes on to my neighbor.  Somehow that action is moral?  Somehow that decreases suffering?  Somehow that ends tyranny?

Stop him, if you must! But at what cost? Do you even truly understand the real cost, because it may be higher than you would be wise to pay. At what price will you take the Ring of Power? I say to you that at some level that you cannot yet understand, if you could only see what is happening you wouldn't come near that for all the riches or love in the world. You destroy yourself at the most basic level.

And Caleb, I don't think you can retreat to a 'not no contact' position.  Physical force is violence.  No matter what your intention it can result in injury, death.  Even if you are successful in not harming someone you have coerced them, imposed your will upon them.  How does this make you different from the current crop of tyrants?

Sometimes wills are imposed. I have never hurt someone even accidentally in the act of helping them. It all goes back to this: what are you letting into your pysche? What terrible forces? Or what strength? Do you even know? Someone once said (I think in this thread) that it wasn't realistic to live the life (as some do) reasoning that we're all going to die anyway. I think that is the most realistic way to live your life. I'm infamous for saying (as David might tell you) that maybe I would see things differently if I were going to live forever. But since I'm going to die, since this is all temporary anyway, the only thing worth saving is that which is truly eternal.

[Caleb]

Please someone tell me why I'm wrong.

Because you're looking to explain love as a rational thing, when it is a higher conception than the rational. You are looking to create a rulebook, you are looking to understand life as a collection of rights, rather than an opportunity to love. Rights are meaningless. Someone can take your right from you with a gun, and it doesn't matter that you had the right, you're dead or it's gone. You're storing treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume, where thieves break in and steal.

[MaineShark]

non-answer.

Of course it's an answer.  The specific answer being, "this is a whole field of study, and not something that can be easily synopsized in a forum post; go do some research."

If you are going to make a distinction between "things" in the universe, the obvious seperation would be "things that are alive" and "things that are not alive".

Why? 

Because it is an easy distinction to make, and there is a big diffence between those two things. I can test to see if something is alive.

Perhaps you should have quoted (and responded to) the response.  A bacterium is alive.  Does it have rights?

Any then, of course, we can make it no longer easy by introducing virii.  Is a virus alive?  There's no agreement on that one.

Possession is ownership, subsequent to homesteading.  After that, ownership may be transferred by contract.

ownership is a legal concept....as in legal right of possession. Possession is simply having something.

Incorrect.  I suggest doing some research.

Also, my views on property differ from yours, so I wouldn't presume to include a strict respect for property in my pacifism.

That's not for you to decide.  Hitler had a different view on the humanity of Jews.  Doesn't mean that his sick and twisted opinions can over-ride someone else's rights.

Why not?
If you are in charge, you get to decide who/what is a person, and what is not.

If jews are not people, then they don't have rights. So you don't need to take anyones rights away....just declare that they are not people.

You are mistaking the power to create an image with the ability to change reality.  Hitler could create an image of Jews not being people and drape it over reality.  That didn't change the reality of their personhood.

It's a shame you didn't finish reading. Tolstoy goes on to explain what inevitably happens when the peasants do resist (as they often did): inevitably, they are beat down and their final position is worse than the first. He goes on to show how the current system of violence and retribution is always used to support the status quo, how its use always benefits the strong at the expense of the weak, and furthermore that it is, by its very nature, the way that it must be. In the rare event that the weak overcome the powerful through brute strength, they quickly become the very evil they hated. (Think French Revolution.) It's like the Ring of Power, "In place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen. Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morning. Treacherous as the Sea. Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair." One evil replaces another, but evil cannot conquer evil.

Ah, the joys of circular logic.

Even if I can love them, love doesn't necessarily demand nonresistance.

No! It doesn't! this is the very point I am trying to make. But it does demand that we do no harm to them, and that isn't the sort of thing we can try to find a loophole for, because the very act of seeking the loophole betrays the fact that the love is truly not in our heart.

Why?  As addressed before, if one believes in punishment in the afterlife, killing someone to prevent him from doing evil which would result in an eternity of torture would seem to be the ultimate act of love.  To care so much for someone who wants to hurt you that you are willing to take the higher path and spare him a "revenge" you could obtain by doing nothing seems to be a very loving thing to do.

Stop him, if you must! But at what cost? Do you even truly understand the real cost, because it may be higher than you would be wise to pay. At what price will you take the Ring of Power? I say to you that at some level that you cannot yet understand, if you could only see what is happening you wouldn't come near that for all the riches or love in the world. You destroy yourself at the most basic level.

And we get back to you trying to enforce your beliefs on others.

Some earlier religions make killing the evil folks in this world a religious duty; your status in the afterlife is determined by how much good you did by killing bad guys who would harm others.

Are you saying that you are magically more correct than them, and we should just take that on faith?

Why don't you try and prove that there is some "destruction" in ourselves when we act in self-defense?

Sometimes wills are imposed. I have never hurt someone even accidentally in the act of helping them. It all goes back to this: what are you letting into your pysche? What terrible forces? Or what strength? Do you even know? Someone once said (I think in this thread) that it wasn't realistic to live the life (as some do) reasoning that we're all going to die anyway. I think that is the most realistic way to live your life. I'm infamous for saying (as David might tell you) that maybe I would see things differently if I were going to live forever. But since I'm going to die, since this is all temporary anyway, the only thing worth saving is that which is truly eternal.

For the sake of discussion, what if some of those earlier belief systems are correct, and by not defending others, you are doomed in the afterlife?

Please someone tell me why I'm wrong.

Because you're looking to explain love as a rational thing, when it is a higher conception than the rational. You are looking to create a rulebook, you are looking to understand life as a collection of rights, rather than an opportunity to love. Rights are meaningless. Someone can take your right from you with a gun, and it doesn't matter that you had the right, you're dead or it's gone. You're storing treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume, where thieves break in and steal.

LOL.  So love is not rational.  In that case - if the world is not bounded by rationality - then your earlier statements regarding God, evil, and free will become moot.  If this is not a rational world, then there is no logical limit preventing free will from existing at the same time as God destroys all evil.  Therefore, by your claim here, God is either evil or lacking in omnipotence, because you just destroyed the foundation for the "free will" objection to the problem of evil.

Joe

[sandm000]

Please someone tell me why I'm wrong.

Because you're looking to explain love as a rational thing, when it is a higher conception than the rational. You are looking to create a rulebook, you are looking to understand life as a collection of rights, rather than an opportunity to love. Rights are meaningless. Someone can take your right from you with a gun, and it doesn't matter that you had the right, you're dead or it's gone. You're storing treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume, where thieves break in and steal.

Rights are not meaningless.  Someone can only prevent me from exercising a right by pointing a gun at me, they cannot take it away. And I can buy mothballs, oil anything in my house, install security and sleep with a gun.  I understand that life is transient, and for that very reason I want to hold on to everything I've got.  When I make peace with the world and my inevitable death then maybe we can talk about love being the guiding principle for man, until then, I'm gonna hope like hell that I can get on immortality's ladder. 
We must be able to appeal to universal human emotions when discussing this sort of thing. And there exists only one universal emotion, greed.  Not necessarily love of money, but self interest.  Self love if you will.  Every breath you take, every bite you eat, every drink you take, is out of self interest.  Even people who commit suicide are being greedy, only thinking of themselves.

[Russell Kanning]

And there exists only one universal emotion, greed.  Not necessarily love of money, but self interest.  Self love if you will.

That makes some sense to me.

Christ's second most important instruction was to love your neighbor as yourself. Everyone looks out for themselves. His path to a whole new way of living was that each of us would show that same concern for those around them. It is not natural, but I think it helps. It is not easy, but many of us are trying to walk that path.

[Russell Kanning]

Sometimes people wonder (like I have many times) why Jesus Christ didn't write a complete philosophy, instead of a few short speeches, giving analogies, and answering people's questions. But it seems that is the way people learn. If you try to hand them a whole systematic answer (such as libertarianism, beginning with ZAP) .... they are not ready for it. It is best to show it. If that is not available, you have to flesh it out somehow. Above all you have to love them.

[John Edward Mercier]

And there exists only one universal emotion, greed.  Not necessarily love of money, but self interest.  Self love if you will.

That makes some sense to me.

Christ's second most important instruction was to love your neighbor as yourself. Everyone looks out for themselves. His path to a whole new way of living was that each of us would show that same concern for those around them. It is not natural, but I think it helps. It is not easy, but many of us are trying to walk that path.

I think that was what Caleb was saying... the love of ourselves (self interest) is central. Jesus said to love thy neighbor as yourself... thus with the same self-interest. In other words, if I cared about everyone as much as I cared about myself... peace must occur. Unless I was suicidal.

[dalebert]

Jesus said to love thy neighbor as yourself.

I don't think Jesus was all that wise. He also is said to have said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I tried that on a cute guy at the mall and he got REALLY angry with me. Fortunately, I had time to run away while he was trying to get his pants back up.

What if masochists start taking that message to heart?

[Caleb]

Jesus said to love thy neighbor as yourself.

I don't think Jesus was all that wise. He also is said to have said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I tried that on a cute guy at the mall and he got REALLY angry with me. Fortunately, I had time to run away while he was trying to get his pants back up.

What if masochists start taking that message to heart?

You would want for someone to take unwanted sexual liberties with you against your will? The Golden Rule doesn't exist so we can try to play games with it and find loopholes to do what we want to do anyway. The Golden Rule is something that we all understand in spirit. The very fact that you use the tongue in cheek comment about the gentleman in the mall reflects that you do understand that very point: you understand on a very intuitive level that your (hypothetical) advance was unwanted on his part. And there's no way you can phrase the sentence to make that reality different.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Jesus said to love thy neighbor as yourself.

I don't think Jesus was all that wise. He also is said to have said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I tried that on a cute guy at the mall and he got REALLY angry with me. Fortunately, I had time to run away while he was trying to get his pants back up.

What if masochists start taking that message to heart?

You would want for someone to take unwanted sexual liberties with you against your will? The Golden Rule doesn't exist so we can try to play games with it and find loopholes to do what we want to do anyway. The Golden Rule is something that we all understand in spirit. The very fact that you use the tongue in cheek comment about the gentleman in the mall reflects that you do understand that very point: you understand on a very intuitive level that your (hypothetical) advance was unwanted on his part. And there's no way you can phrase the sentence to make that reality different.

DUH!

[dalebert]

You would want for someone to take unwanted sexual liberties with you against your will? The Golden Rule doesn't exist so we can try to play games with it and find loopholes to do what we want to do anyway. The Golden Rule is something that we all understand in spirit. The very fact that you use the tongue in cheek comment about the gentleman in the mall reflects that you do understand that very point: you understand on a very intuitive level that your (hypothetical) advance was unwanted on his part. And there's no way you can phrase the sentence to make that reality different.

There are some people who, if they expressed a little affection within reason,... let's just say I wouldn't put up a fight. My silly example was merely pointing out that it's simplistic and short-sighted to presume that everyone wants the same thing. More importantly, it's a kind of moral relativism. A socialist has a screwed up notion of the types of violence against themselves that they consider perfectly acceptable as long as it's exacted against everyone else as well because it's for the "greater good". I don't want a socialist to treat me as they would be treated. I agree with you about justifications though. I think it's in our nature to have empathy for our fellow man. The greatest threat to that is our elaborate justifications that we use to ease our conscience, like the socialist and the greater good.

[Caleb]

More importantly, it's a kind of moral relativism. A socialist has a screwed up notion of the types of violence against themselves that they consider perfectly acceptable as long as it's exacted against everyone else as well because it's for the "greater good". I don't want a socialist to treat me as they would be treated. I agree with you about justifications though. I think it's in our nature to have empathy for our fellow man. The greatest threat to that is our elaborate justifications that we use to ease our conscience, like the socialist and the greater good.

Well, let me say this: If a person genuinely, truly, treated another person the way he wanted to be treated and it was unwelcome on the other person's part, then I think in that situation you would have what we call a misunderstanding. And if the person truly loves the other person, once he sees that the misunderstanding has occurred, he would take steps to rectify the wrong. If that is the worst that we have to fear from applying the golden rule, I say "Have at it!" It's about a billion percent better than the world we have now.

Most socialists don't seem ruled by love. To me, anyway, they mostly seem like they are imbibing the archetypes of bitterness, envy, and jealousy, not love.