Govt tends to grow if you use violence against it

[Dave Ridley]

My favorite mike fisher quote...tho it is more a paraphrase.

maybe there are exceptions such as the nazis and soviets.

[CaveDog]

Besides these evils, Sir, tho' we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be of long continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for proposed augmentations. And there will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in return to give more to them. -- Hence as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partizans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharoah, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever.

-From a paper by Ben Franklin read in the constitutional debates (http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc-0602.txt)

[penguins4me]

My favorite mike fisher quote...tho it is more a paraphrase.

maybe there are exceptions such as the nazis and soviets.

... and England, circa 1776... ;)

[KBCraig]

-From a paper by Ben Franklin read in the constitutional debates (http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc-0602.txt)

Outstanding. +1 for CaveDog.

[eques]

Government tends to grow no matter what, and the justification against the use of violence can't be based on the effect it has on government, but because it is wrong to use violence.

I will note, however, that "violence breeds violence" is a valid observation.

[Lasse]

Also, violence kills all sympathy for the movement and makes it very easy for the rulers that be and the administration to blackpaint and disparage the movement without consequences.

[eques]

Again, the argument from effect is far weaker than the moral argument.

[Lasse]

Again, the argument from effect is far weaker than the moral argument.

But if one is looking to actually achieve radical change rather than writing pretty words about it, one has to consider the practicality and effects rather than simply turning a blind eye to it.

[eques]

Do people generally do what they feel is effective, or do they generally do what they feel is right?

The answer to that should guide one's effort.

[Caleb]

Do people generally do what they feel is effective, or do they generally do what they feel is right?

The answer to that should guide one's effort.

Unfortunately, it seems they all too often do what they think is "effective" rather than what they think is right.

[eques]

Do people generally do what they feel is effective, or do they generally do what they feel is right?

The answer to that should guide one's effort.

Unfortunately, it seems they all too often do what they think is "effective" rather than what they think is right.

Exceptions aside, what is the general case?

[powerchuter]

To submit...
Or...
Not to submit...

Ah, the question...

Some may choose to submit and that is their choice...
Others may choose to NOT submit and that is THEIR choice...

Some may be willing to allow their physical bodies to be controlled by others...
This may include robbery, rape, extortion, fraud, imprisonment, kidnapping, murder, genocide, etc.
Once control of your physical body is acquired, your captors can do anything they want to you...
They can drug you, torture you, experiment with you, implant devices into you...whatever they want...
It's possible that they may even be able to create a condition where you don't even remember certain things...or maybe even who you "are"...
(For reference see the Stanford Prison Experiment)

I'm not inclined to allow others to control or possess my physical body...
As some have said...
"There are things worse than death"...

We each own our physical bodies...
We each have to make our own decisions about what we will and won't let or allow others to do to us...

The defense of one's "self" is natural...
Self preservation and species procreation are inherent to the "healthy" members of that species...

I checked out some definitions of "violent" and "violence" just for reference...
There are different "definitions" depending on who "defined" it...
But the common theme that I found was both terms have to do with "violating"/"damaging"/"abusing"/"injuring"...there seems to be a consensus that those two terms most often refer to aggression and initiation of force/fraud...

Then I checked out "self defense" and found a common theme of "defending" oneself AGAINST violence/aggression with defensive force...obviously this would be discretionary...

I'm sure someone...who might have a different opinion on what their personal definition of any term might be...could find some sort of support for it somewhere...I think you can find anything if you try hard enough...

[eques]

Check again.

I don't think the question was, "Should one submit to violence?"

The question I am asking (and which has not been answered) is, "Do people act upon what they think is good or what they think is effective?"  It is an important distinction, because if they act upon what they think is effective, then telling somebody that Action X is less effective than Action Y would always work.  In truth, however, if Action X is viewed as more moral than Action Y, most people will choose Action X over Action Y despite the efficacy of Action Y.

So, in general, people do not choose efficiency over goodness.

Easy example: it is not effective to pay taxes.  There are fewer activities that are less effective!  You may illustrate to an individual just how ineffective paying taxes is (the fact that they have less money, the fact that that money goes to people who haven't earned it or don't deserve it), but that will not change their behavior.  If you demonstrate to and manage to convince that person that taxation is immoral, there is a much better chance of that person actually acting on that belief.

Many, many, many people do appear to think that taxation has some moral basis.  This may be difficult to believe, but I've talked with more than a few of them (and observation of what's actually going on should give a pretty good clue how pervasive this belief is).  It doesn't help to try to illustrate a society with "pretty words" if people believe that such a society is not moral.

Getting back to violence, the reason to not use violence, then, shouldn't be because it causes government growth, or escalates situations, or anything like that, but because the use of violence is immoral.

The problem with arguments from effectiveness is that the argument can go both ways.  For every argument against the use of violence, there is a potential argument for it.  There is no objective standard by which one may judge the use of violence in this way.  It merely becomes an opinion to be argued over, not a fact that can be judged.

When you discuss whether violence is right or wrong, you cannot have it both ways.  It cannot be right and wrong.  And if the use of violence is right in some circumstances, it has to be right for everybody in those circumstances.  Further, those circumstances must be objectively determined.  It is a discussion of moral fact, not a discussion of opinion.

And "violence" is going to be defined as such: any act which inflicts pain or death upon the recipient, whether that be physical, emotional (especially in the case of the emotionally impressionable), or otherwise.  "Self-defense" is a pretty slippery slope, because it is not clear where the line should be drawn.  If there is an objective standard by which self-defense can be measured, then let's have it.

Furthermore, self-defense becomes more difficult to defend when one considers that there are many ways to avoid confrontation, and that some investments that go into winning a potential confrontation could very well be used to prevent that confrontation in the first place.  Instead of a new gun, perhaps an alarm system.  Instead of a flak jacket, perhaps a camera.

I realize that, at present, we live in a society that makes extensive use of violence.  What is needed, then, is to recognize that this is a moral challenge.  To "sell" it is going to require much more than a list of benefits and drawbacks--it is going to require a change in morality.

[powerchuter]

I wasn't trying to answer your question...

Your definitions may or may not be mine or others...
Your determinations may or may not be mine or others...

For me it all boils down to the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule...
And, of course, being equipped and prepared to use Superior Defensive Force to either cause those who might use aggression and fraud against me to decide against the actions beforehand or to stop that aggression and fraud once it has been initiated...

If every inhabitant of the planet lived by the NAP and the GR we wouldn't need this forum...or the movement...or any supposed "gooberment"...

If there was a button to press that would make all the people disappear who aggressed or supported aggression either directly and/or indirectly...against others...to also include any and all fraud...

I would gladly push it...

I would estimate that action would reduce the planetary population by 50 to 80 percent...

[eques]

When I define "violence" in order to clarify my meaning, you don't get a pass merely because you define it differently.

You would push a button that would eradicate 50 to 80 percent of the human population of the earth?  By your definition, this would include everybody from contract breakers and petty thieves to serial murderers and heads of state.  Such a move would be an aggression of such monumental proportions that the button would strike you down first.  Would you still then push it, for "the greater good?"