NationStates Jolt Archive

Whole forests of trees have been sacrificed to the argument over the rights and wrongs of the Iraq invasion, at what level is force justified? Should it be pre-emptive? Defencive? And if defencive, what constitutes defence?.............back to pre-emptive again or when physically attacked. I'm not just talking international here, I'm also interested in personal violence. I don't particularly want to get deep into the Iraq question, I would like the 'general' view of the question.

As long as there is a Hitler out there war is the only way to attain peace.

Your question isn't as simple as might first appear.

At a personal level, at least in most American states, you have a right to defend yourself when you are in "reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm," or when you have reason to believe another person is. Also, in most states, you can use force to prevent a number of other crimes such as rape, theft, etc. Where the rubber meets the road though is when you're trying to convince a jury of your peers that a reasonable person in the circumstances leading up to your violent act would have drawn the same conclusion as you did.

Whether a judge or jury decides you innocent, or guilty of using "excessive force" to protect life or property varies from state to state. In North Carolina, where I live, it's a rare jury which will convict you if there was a possibility you were simply defending yourself or others.

Is that something along the lines of what you were looking for? :)

again, I'm going with the Church on this one; in order to prevent greater violence/loss of life

I personally do not believe that force is ever justified, though in our planetary society as a whole, it is unavoidable.


I kinda want to leave it at that, all poetic and epic, but if you want me to expand on that, I will.

When is force justified? Ever have someone or something try to kill a kid?

Your question isn't as simple as might first appear.

At a personal level, at least in most American states, you have a right to defend yourself when you are in "reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm," or when you have reason to believe another person is. Also, in most states, you can use force to prevent a number of other crimes such as rape, theft, etc. Where the rubber meets the road though is when you're trying to convince a jury of your peers that a reasonable person in the circumstances leading up to your violent act would have drawn the same conclusion as you did.

Whether a judge or jury decides you innocent, or guilty of using "excessive force" to protect life or property varies from state to state. In North Carolina, where I live, it's a rare jury which will convict you if there was a possibility you were simply defending yourself or others.

Is that something along the lines of what you were looking for? :)


It is, thank you. You possibly know that here, in the UK, judges and juries are far less keen to be lenient towards a plea of self defence when 'excessive' force is used.

I personally do not believe that force is ever justified, though in our planetary society as a whole, it is unavoidable.


I kinda want to leave it at that, all poetic and epic, but if you want me to expand on that, I will.


It's a noble ideal and one I agree with but force is a part of the human condition. There will always be people wanting to hurt us. For instance, a man is threatened by another with a knife, he loves and provides for a wife and two children, doesn't he owe it to them to defend himself?

It's a noble ideal and one I agree with but force is a part of the human condition. There will always be people wanting to hurt us. For instance, a man is threatened by another with a knife, he loves and provides for a wife and two children, doesn't he owe it to them to defend himself?
As I said, I believe it is nessecary in today's society, but in a perfect world, there would not be anyone threatening anyone else with a knife in the first place.

As I said, I believe it is nessecary in today's society, but in a perfect world, there would not be anyone threatening anyone else with a knife in the first place.
That like textbook communism -- nice idea, but it will *never* happen.

That like textbook communism -- nice idea, but it will *never* happen.
I am confident that it be possible will once 90-98% of the human race has destroyed itself in nuclear war.

It is, thank you. You possibly know that here, in the UK, judges and juries are far less keen to be lenient towards a plea of self defence when 'excessive' force is used.
Though I've never visited the UK, I suspect you're correct.

A standard "coutroom joke" here is about the Sherrif who was called to the scene of a murder where the "victim" was a robber who the homeowner shot. ( In NC, if you shoot a robber who has not yet entered your house, you have the burden of proof to show that he was going to enter your home and that you feared for your life as a result. ) The Sherrif found the robber dead on the front steps, facing toward the house. He looked at the homeowner and asked, "Now how the hell was this robber able to crawl all the way out here on your front porch after you shot him through the head in your living room, Billy-Bob? He sure must have been high on them drugs they take now-a-days!" :)

A standard "coutroom joke" here is about the Sherrif who was called to the scene of a murder where the "victim" was a robber who the homeowner shot. ( In NC, if you shoot a robber who has not yet entered your house, you have the burden of proof to show that he was going to enter your home and that you feared for your life as a result. ) The Sherrif found the robber dead on the front steps, facing toward the house. He looked at the homeowner and asked, "Now how the hell was this robber able to crawl all the way out here on your front porch after you shot him through the head in your living room, Billy-Bob? Sure must have been high on drugs!"

Here in Louisiana, we don't have that problem so much. Also there is something of an unwritten "needed killing" defense, too.

Force is always justified. Conflict is natural. Competition for resources is much easier when your opponent is dead. Similarly, violating one's territory calls for a violent responce. The invader threatens survival on several levels, directly and indirectly.

That said, conflict on both personal and national levels naturally lead to violence. Killing one's competition might not be pretty, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

In a brief aside, I find this very similar to some of the posts on the Martial Arts topics we had earlier. Force is better not used, but sometimes we must use it or see greater harm done.

So lets use force as little as possible but use it well when we do. That we can control the force and keep it at resonable levels, not letting things get out of control.

The force is justified when you're the last hope for your squadron to get a missile down a hole no bigger than a womprat.

Otherwise, when hope is gone, there's always justice. When justice is gone, there's always force. When force is gone, there's always Mom.

Hi Mom.

My beliefs in one sentence; War can never be the solution, only the cause.

That doesn't cover all of it, though. But fighting fire with fire usually creates more fire. And looking on all the conflicts in the world the last few years, I don't see a single one of them being necessary.

It should only be used when everything else has failed. And then, civilian casualties should not at all happen, certainly not from mistakes (like bombing the wrong buildings). And military action cannot be taken in disagreement with the rest of the world (i.e. the UN), because your goal should not be to create more anger.

E.g., I don't see the war on Iraq justified in any way. It was not pre-emptive action, it was an attack. There were no reasons for war. But by starting this war, they've fueled the anger of millions, and can expect more acts of terrorism, rather than less.

i find it funny that force is ever necessary. if humans acted more like humans and less like animals, we would probably never need to resort to violence when it comes to dealing with eachother. i guess we did evolve from monkeys.

Force is always "justified", if only because there is no justification needed, and none to be given. Its only whether you can pull off your force with greater gains than losses, that justifies it.

In my opinion, force is justified when all other political means have been exhausted. Self-defense is an immediate force necessity. Pre-emption is much harder to define but certainly in the case of Iraq, it's over and done with, the invasion happened. What more is there to do than argue? It won't change anything. However, remember that war is just the continuation of politics by alternate means, to paraphrase and quote from von Clausewitz.

In my opinion, force is never ever justified.
Yes, I do believe in self-defence, but never to the point of killing another human being. Under any circumstances.

That's just my opinion, it's not going to change the world or change the fact that history is written by the winners (If you win the war, you obviously don't need to justify yourself)

It just so happens that about the only thing I completely and truely believe in are the Human Rights, which clearly state that every human being has a right to live. This is an unalienable right, in my opinion killing is always wrong.

I am confident that it be possible will once 90-98% of the human race has destroyed itself in nuclear war.
I doubt it. I predict that we'd culturally devolve to a form of tribalism.

i find it funny that force is ever necessary. if humans acted more like humans and less like animals, we would probably never need to resort to violence when it comes to dealing with eachother. i guess we did evolve from monkeys.
Heck...there's people that think we should be able to fuck anything that moves and never have to deal with any of the responsibility or consequences...totally led around by base instincts and selfishness...rather animalistic if you ask me...and they call that idea "progressive".

:rolleyes:

Though I've never visited the UK, I suspect you're correct.

A standard "coutroom joke" here is about the Sherrif who was called to the scene of a murder where the "victim" was a robber who the homeowner shot. ( In NC, if you shoot a robber who has not yet entered your house, you have the burden of proof to show that he was going to enter your home and that you feared for your life as a result. ) The Sherrif found the robber dead on the front steps, facing toward the house. He looked at the homeowner and asked, "Now how the hell was this robber able to crawl all the way out here on your front porch after you shot him through the head in your living room, Billy-Bob? He sure must have been high on them drugs they take now-a-days!" :)


Actually that's not the case any longer. In NC you have the right to use deadly force to keep someone out of your house. If you catch them trying to get in then you have the right to use force. Once they are inside your house then it goes back to you can only use and equal amount of force as that which you are being attcked with. In other words, once they are inside your house you life has to be in danger before you have the right to use deadly force.

The law in NC is that if you are threatened by someone you only have the right to use an equal amount of force to defend yourself. If you beat someone up with a baseball bat and they didn't have any type of weapon then even if they attacked you first you are probably going to have to defend yourself against excessive force claims.

When is force justified?

Very, very tempted to say "never". It would solve a darn lot of problems.

Whole forests of trees have been sacrificed to the argument over the rights and wrongs of the Iraq invasion, at what level is force justified? Should it be pre-emptive? Defencive? And if defencive, what constitutes defence?.............back to pre-emptive again or when physically attacked. I'm not just talking international here, I'm also interested in personal violence. I don't particularly want to get deep into the Iraq question, I would like the 'general' view of the question.

While I find it a valuable point, I also find it curious that you speak of forests killed in the argument, while failing to mention the over 100,000 humans killed in the war itself...

Very, very tempted to say "never". It would solve a darn lot of problems.

Wouldn't solve the problem of women being killed by their husbands and boyfriends in domestic violence cases.

Self-defense with a firearm, on the other hand, most certainly does.

Force is always justified. Conflict is natural. Competition for resources is much easier when your opponent is dead. Similarly, violating one's territory calls for a violent responce. The invader threatens survival on several levels, directly and indirectly.

That said, conflict on both personal and national levels naturally lead to violence. Killing one's competition might not be pretty, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.


Force is always justified...Might is Right... old Adolf would be so proud...

Killing the competition isn't wrong? Even though beating him off might be sufficient?

In my opinion the threat of force precludes its use. If you come across as helpless there are people (and you're sure to meet them) who will attack you for that, whereas if you present yourself as "Mess with me and I'll rip your arm off and beat you to death with the wet end" you will meet nice people and never have problems.

Wouldn't solve the problem of women being killed by their husbands and boyfriends in domestic violence cases.

Self-defense with a firearm, on the other hand, most certainly does.

But thats excessive, your not really equating like with like. Maybe the best thing would be to exclude cultural differences here (ie use of firearms as they're commonplace in the US but not in Europe) and try and focus on the common aspects of humanity.

Force should be used only if their is a direct threat to your survival, and in that, only to the point were the danger ceases to be present- this does NOT mean the killing of the opponent necessarily. A states primary role is self survival- in that respect force is justified. A person is similar in a domestic analogy.

Read Michael Walzer 'Just and Unjust Wars- the Just War Theory' for better codification of justifications.

While I find it a valuable point, I also find it curious that you speak of forests killed in the argument, while failing to mention the over 100,000 humans killed in the war itself...

No, I've posted a thousand times here and elsewhere, protesting the death of those innocents. I wanted to stay away from that argument, it always descends into futile argument (pro / anti Brush).

The realist inside me says that justice is not a real issue, and so Might is Right. You are justified in the same way that you are 'justified' to do anything you can do.

But if Might is Right, then a succesful rape is Right.

Morally speaking violent force has got to be bad/wrong. If you are being attacked then one should deal with the threat in a non-violent way - supress it and then convert it/lock it up.

How would you deal with a Nazi Germany? Well the Nazi's were the one's to escalate the level of force to a near-total war level, thus to subdue them one has to bite the bullet and fight back with similar levels of force. But if operations were designed to force the enemy to surrender then one immediately gains a moral superiority. In some sense Mustard Gas is morally better than a machine gun in that it disables enemy fighters as opposed to killing them.

However one could argue that whilst conflict is natural, war is not. Looking at the animal kingdom we see that typically conflicts between same-species animals are resolved through displays of strength, colour and sound. An alpha male gorilla does not kill his challengers - a defeated gorilla becomes a testament to his power, a carcass is testament to his fear (and that is no good because the other gorillas will be therefore happy to see him go).

War occurs because of the human preocupation with the nation-state. Northern American Indian tribes had no wars because they all shared the same land (the only territorally sacred places were the burial grounds). They had conflict but this was often resolved by ritualised combat (like the animal kingdom). If territory was considered free (the world we live in and share with other people should never be turned into private property) then wars would not be fought over territory. And if there is no territory to fight over then there is no point in a war (maybe you want to kill your business competitor; but at least you can't force all the poor people who live on 'your' land to go and kill all the enemy's poor people).

I know nation-states are fairly natural developments of the warlord dominated society, but then perhaps we can blame all the worlds modern day evils on the fact that our distant ancestors chose to abuse the power of weaponry, as opposed to the power of words (or something...does anyone follow me?).

Conclusion: War is a result of private property - and there is nothing in our biological nature that needs private property; private property is simply the argument of the powerful ("I've got it - so you can f*** off" or "That looks nice - give it to me, i'll let you live").

My beliefs in one sentence; War can never be the solution, only the cause.

That doesn't cover all of it, though. But fighting fire with fire usually creates more fire. And looking on all the conflicts in the world the last few years, I don't see a single one of them being necessary.

It should only be used when everything else has failed. And then, civilian casualties should not at all happen, certainly not from mistakes (like bombing the wrong buildings). And military action cannot be taken in disagreement with the rest of the world (i.e. the UN), because your goal should not be to create more anger.

E.g., I don't see the war on Iraq justified in any way. It was not pre-emptive action, it was an attack. There were no reasons for war. But by starting this war, they've fueled the anger of millions, and can expect more acts of terrorism, rather than less.

The last conflict I believe that was 'justified' was the fight against Hitler. He would have been stopped no other way. Another thing, people are always saying that freedom is worth dying for, if so, then in the minds of the opressed, war / fighting is a legitimate means to an end.

But thats excessive, your not really equating like with like. Maybe the best thing would be to exclude cultural differences here (ie use of firearms as they're commonplace in the US but not in Europe) and try and focus on the common aspects of humanity.

Force should be used only if their is a direct threat to your survival, and in that, only to the point were the danger ceases to be present- this does NOT mean the killing of the opponent necessarily. A states primary role is self survival- in that respect force is justified. A person is similar in a domestic analogy.

Read Michael Walzer 'Just and Unjust Wars- the Just War Theory' for better codification of justifications.

Well, here in the US, when your husband is beating you to death, the courts here generally find that lethal force is justified. And if he has a habit of putting you in the hospital with beatings, the next time he hits you, the court will agree that your risk of death is high enough to justify shooting him.

A 100 pound woman has NO easy counter to a 200 pound man beating on her.

Additionally, the women in my group haven't had to use their firearms yet. No one has been shot. But the deterrence effect is overwhelming. None of them have been stalked, attacked, or killed - that's an effect that is not being produced by the standard method of waiting for the police to come save you, or fending him off with your bare hands.

[QUOTE=Glorious Irreverrance...........does anyone follow me?).

Yes, your basic argument is that we are animals, no matter how clever we like to think we are, and we still follow instincts inherited long ago. The exception(s) being when tribal societies had distinct territories and disputes were settled on a small-scale level. I suppose it would be nice if we could return to medieval ideas of having 'champions' fight on behalf of causes.

Well, here in the US, when your husband is beating you to death, the courts here generally find that lethal force is justified. And if he has a habit of putting you in the hospital with beatings, the next time he hits you, the court will agree that your risk of death is high enough to justify shooting him.

A 100 pound woman has NO easy counter to a 200 pound man beating on her.

Additionally, the women in my group haven't had to use their firearms yet. No one has been shot. But the deterrence effect is overwhelming. None of them have been stalked, attacked, or killed - that's an effect that is not being produced by the standard method of waiting for the police to come save you, or fending him off with your bare hands.
Sorry, i should have spaced that out better. The first sentence was directed at you- the rest was general topic.

Using your example- the woman could have knocked the man unconscious by some blow to the head- the danger has been stopped and there are now other ways to deal with the abusive husband, through the courts, police, etc.

The husband now lying unconscious on the floor, the abused wife decides to exact some further 'taste of his own medicine'- she pummels him with a golf club, or stabs him in revenge etc etc.

Thats excessive and unjustified.

I didn't want to bring guns/war into the argument as there begins to be too many variables and 'exceptions'. A general human morality and value of life are more pertinent to this argument.

Well, here in the US, when your husband is beating you to death, the courts here generally find that lethal force is justified. And if he has a habit of putting you in the hospital with beatings, the next time he hits you, the court will agree that your risk of death is high enough to justify shooting him.

A 100 pound woman has NO easy counter to a 200 pound man beating on her.

Additionally, the women in my group haven't had to use their firearms yet. No one has been shot. But the deterrence effect is overwhelming. None of them have been stalked, attacked, or killed - that's an effect that is not being produced by the standard method of waiting for the police to come save you, or fending him off with your bare hands.

Women abusers are some of the lowest form of life. The problem with arms is that sooner or later, the abuser(s) arm themselves too, in escalation. So you get an abuser willing and happy to bash the shit out of a weaker person, she defends herself with a lethal weapon, he retaliates with one of his own, back to square one except death comes quicker. Yes, I know, this is all fine for me to pontificate when I'm not facing that dirty abuse, I'm just arguing a 'long term' scenario.

It's a noble ideal and one I agree with but force is a part of the human condition. There will always be people wanting to hurt us. For instance, a man is threatened by another with a knife, he loves and provides for a wife and two children, doesn't he owe it to them to defend himself?

This comes down to a more fundamental question: human nature.

Thomas Hobbes, English 17th Century political philosopher, argued that the justification for a state (and he was referring to a state with an absolutist ruler) was that humans are on the whole "wretched and selfish creatures" and without a strong state/ruler, the rule of nature (theoretical time before states and civilisation) would return and men would due to this "wretched and selfish" nature would rule an 'everyman for himself' philosophy. His views were influenced by the chaos surrounding him as he beared witness to the English Civil War.

Some Enlightenment thinkers (i.e. mid-18th Century) argued differently. William Godwin, another Englishman, argued that men are "perfectable" whereas in the 20th Century, American Cold War political thinker and anarchist R.P. Wolff argued that man is governed by "moral laws" which will ensure that he behaves appropriately hence there was no need for a state. One of the reasons for the importance that historians attach to the French Revolution, is not just that a political structure was overhauled as that had happened before (The Netherlands in the late-Sixteenth Century, in mid-Seventeenth Century England and in America in 1776) but because the revolutionaries, especially Maximilien de Robespierre believed that you could change human nature itself through political action. During the Terror, Robespierre (previously against the death penalty) ordered the execution via guillotine of a number of people for 'moral failings'.

Therefore the fundamental point behind this question on the use of force is one's perception of human nature. 'Hobbesians' or Realists argue that force will always be necessary so long as there is an anarchical state to the International System(no international police, no international government or sovereign). On the reverse, an international Liberal (George W. Bush for example) would argue that states, like Human Beings, are 'perfectable' via 'democracy' and point to the fact that no two modern democracies have as yet gone to war with one another. To Liberals, the idea of a 'Pacific Union' or a democratised world would ensure an end to world conflict.

SLW

Women abusers are some of the lowest form of life. The problem with arms is that sooner or later, the abuser(s) arm themselves too, in escalation. So you get an abuser willing and happy to bash the shit out of a weaker person, she defends herself with a lethal weapon, he retaliates with one of his own, back to square one except death comes quicker. Yes, I know, this is all fine for me to pontificate when I'm not facing that dirty abuse, I'm just arguing a 'long term' scenario.

104 women over 2 years in the program.

None of what you describe has happened. In fact, the opposite has happened.

Men who realize that a protective order defines them as an immediate threat to life and limb suddenly have a deep fear of a woman who has a pistol, knows how to use it better than the local police, and has that protective order.

He knows that unlike the traditional picture where police show up, she is entitled to open fire without exchanging any words. He, on the other hand, can't arm himself - once you are served with a protective order, you can't buy a gun legally and no gun store will sell you one. If you do manage to steal one, it's a Federal crime - and the sentence will be much harsher than you would get for beating your wife. And the person who helped you get the gun gets an automatic 10 year sentence.

The men have so far been unwilling or unable to get guns. And they are extremely afraid. One man protested that he was essentially a target, and his wife equipped with a hunting permit.

Well, he should have thought about that before he beat her.

I *heart* premptive strikes.

[QUOTE=Glorious Irreverrance...........does anyone follow me?).

Yes, your basic argument is that we are animals, no matter how clever we like to think we are, and we still follow instincts inherited long ago. The exception(s) being when tribal societies had distinct territories and disputes were settled on a small-scale level. I suppose it would be nice if we could return to medieval ideas of having 'champions' fight on behalf of causes.


I think it would be nicer still if we could de-evolve back to a time when conflict was only ever a product of resource scarcity, and that even then the intention was always to drive off the enmey, or steal his food.

There is enough food in the world to feed humanity many times over. But we remained trapped in these ideas of nation-states, money and power because those at the top have so much to lose compared to those of us at the bottom who have relatively little to gain...

If everyone appreciated that our societies were extrapolations of Might is Right then perhaps we might all be a bit more ruthless in removing those vestigial elements that constantly undermine the interests of humanity as a species.

Personally I am just glad that, luck willing, humanity has hopefully many more hundreds of thousands of years of evolution left, and that we should therefore remind ourselves that we are still in the first 3000 years of recorded history - which would make us very primitive and crude in comparison to thoise humans who will be alive in 102005 A.D. (I hope - they might all be degenarate sadistic scum, but lets assume humanity is progressive).

104 women over 2 years in the program.

None of what you describe has happened. In fact, the opposite has happened.

Men who realize that a protective order defines them as an immediate threat to life and limb suddenly have a deep fear of a woman who has a pistol, knows how to use it better than the local police, and has that protective order.

He knows that unlike the traditional picture where police show up, she is entitled to open fire without exchanging any words. He, on the other hand, can't arm himself - once you are served with a protective order, you can't buy a gun legally and no gun store will sell you one. If you do manage to steal one, it's a Federal crime - and the sentence will be much harsher than you would get for beating your wife. And the person who helped you get the gun gets an automatic 10 year sentence.

The men have so far been unwilling or unable to get guns. And they are extremely afraid. One man protested that he was essentially a target, and his wife equipped with a hunting permit.

Well, he should have thought about that before he beat her.

This is kinda why i didn't want guns and firearms to be used as an example.
None of what you've described ever occurs here as Europe does not have the same legislation regarding gun-laws.
Lets all try to stick to the argument, without getting into local examples- it'll be easier on us all. ;)

<snip>
The men have so far been unwilling or unable to get guns. And they are extremely afraid. One man protested that he was essentially a target, and his wife equipped with a hunting permit.

Well, he should have thought about that before he beat her.

I can actually hear that guy, *childish whiney voice*
"That's not faaair. I wanna hit her! You're mean!"

On topic, as the people who choose to initiate and control the war stay well away form the actual dying military force can only be justified when all other avenues have been explored. All other avenues. With this in mind I am not convinced that any conflict in recent history has been justified.

Women abusers are some of the lowest form of life. The problem with arms is that sooner or later, the abuser(s) arm themselves too, in escalation. So you get an abuser willing and happy to bash the shit out of a weaker person, she defends herself with a lethal weapon, he retaliates with one of his own, back to square one except death comes quicker. Yes, I know, this is all fine for me to pontificate when I'm not facing that dirty abuse, I'm just arguing a 'long term' scenario.
Even in the long term scenario it's wrong.

First off, not every abuser will be able to arm themselves, and those who are, won't always carry the weapon, so we are already reducing the number of abuse attempts. Second, the actual confrontation of two armed people very often boils down to which one is more willing to take the risk of being shot. Most abuse victims will be more motivated to take the risk than most abusers, whose own life and health is otherwise not at risk. Finally, the very fact that the stakes become equal will deter many abusers, since most of them are cowards seeking easy prey, not the prey that will bite you back to death if you happen to be slower on the draw.

That like textbook communism -- nice idea, but it will *never* happen.
Anyone who thinks communism is a nice idea either doesn't understand communism or doesn't use the word "nice" the same way I do.

This is kinda why i didn't want guns and firearms to be used as an example.
None of what you've described ever occurs here as Europe does not have the same legislation regarding gun-laws.
Lets all try to stick to the argument, without getting into local examples- it'll be easier on us all. ;)
Ok. But I think that justification of force is locally dependent and situationally dependent.

The men have so far been unwilling or unable to get guns. And they are extremely afraid. One man protested that he was essentially a target, and his wife equipped with a hunting permit.

Well, he should have thought about that before he beat her.


It does indeed sound like a hunting permit, or even a license to kill.

Somewhat extreme. Imagine if every man who had been beaten up had a license to shoot their attacker next time they saw them. The man may be mentally disturbed - why is the individual allowed to apply the ultimate penalty?, whereas a court of the land would be obliged to find him not guilty and send him to a hospital.

If a girtl slaps/hits/kicks me with her full strength, does that mean I am allowed to respond with more force, possibly even her death? If a bloke hits me in a drunken club night am I excused when I return with a two-by-four and batter his brains out?

Not defending abusers (towards any group; women, men, kids, the handicapped, the old), but just saying that I can see no justification in killing a man because he has caused physical pain (its actually an even more extreme idea of eye-for-an-eye).

I think these people need to be doctored (but then you'd need a comprehensive national health service - incidentally does anyone know how doctors in privately run hospitals rectify their pay-only work with the hippocratic oath?) not shot.

But then I think that anyone who commits crime can be rehabilitated (if you simply seek to punish the criminal then you are only serving your emotional interests, not the interests of society).

On topic, as the people who choose to initiate and control the war stay well away form the actual dying military force can only be justified when all other avenues have been explored. All other avenues. With this in mind I am not convinced that any conflict in recent history has been justified.


Hear! Hear!

The problem is that some of those avenues of bloodshed avoidance are not followed because they run counter to the interests of the political elite (who as you rightly mention do not have to worry (much) about dying.

For example: If the European elite had not wanted Hitler to gain power and thus provide a bulwark against Soviet Russia then they could have sorted out the Nazi problem immediately - France had overwhelming military dominance over Germany in the initial period of Nazi government.

Even in 1939 it appeared that the 'Allies' only declared war after Hitler invaded Poland - was it because of the invasion? (Czecoslovakia, Austria, the Rhineland, military operationsi in the spanish civil war suggest no) or was it because it was at this point that Hitler looked set to get enough power to take on the French and British Empires?

In my opinion, force is justified when all other political means have been exhausted. Self-defense is an immediate force necessity. Pre-emption is much harder to define but certainly in the case of Iraq, it's over and done with, the invasion happened. What more is there to do than argue? It won't change anything. However, remember that war is just the continuation of politics by alternate means, to paraphrase and quote from von Clausewitz.
Von Clausewitz didn't understand what he was talking about. War is the continuation of politics by the *same* means. Politics *is* violence. When you say X should be illegal you are saying that if you do X, uniformed agents of the state should track you down, put you in chains and throw you in a jail cell. If you resist you will be beaten or killed, depending on how hard you resist.

If I were to do that to someone it would be called violence, specifically kidnapping, assault or murder. I don't see how it can be justified just because the guy had a uniform and some thugs calling themselves a "government" said it was okay.

"Justified" only expresses a personal preference so the quesion isn't deeply meaningful but for what it's worth I find violence for any reason other than defence of people or property rights (since to confiscate the fruits of someone's labour is equivalent to slavery) to be uncivilized. If, like me, you believe violence should only be used defensively you are saying you disapprove of laws against drugs, prostitution, posession of firearms as well as all taxation, since taxes are collected through threats of jail and are thus a form of armed robbery (specifically, extortion). If you don't agree just imagine if Microsoft were to force people to buy windows under threat of kidnapping, this would be violence, surely. Well, this is how the state pays for schools and hospitals.

It is of course perfectly consistent to believe that all these things are all fine and dandy, so long as you are aware that you are advocating threats of extreme violence against all your neighbours, friends and family.

Incidently, this is why it is almost comical to listen to lefties complaining about the violence of war for profit, when all the while they advocate violently confiscating the property of others to pay for *their* pet projects. The right wing are retarded too but at least they're consistent, at least on this issue.

I suggest you read the work of Samenow. Most of the current theories on rehabilitation are worthless, and there are some sets of criminals who can never be rehabilitated.

It's a deeply held mindset - not a disease or an affliction.

Well, the truth is, as many people refuse to believe, that war is the only thing that can create lasting peace. Through war, technology grows, dangers are eliminated, and the upstarts are put down. Nowadays, nuclear weapons are all that prevent another world war.

Even in 1939 it appeared that the 'Allies' only declared war after Hitler invaded Poland - was it because of the invasion? (Czecoslovakia, Austria, the Rhineland, military operationsi in the spanish civil war suggest no) or was it because it was at this point that Hitler looked set to get enough power to take on the French and British Empires?
That's very perceptive of you. Most people don't realise that and I think they should. If the idea was to liberate Poland why did they leave it in the hands of a vicious communist dictator who murdered millions?

Well, the truth is, as many people refuse to believe, that war is the only thing that can create lasting peace. Through war, technology grows, dangers are eliminated, and the upstarts are put down. Nowadays, nuclear weapons are all that prevent another world war.
That is contradictory. Saying "war creates peace" is Orwellian double speak. It doesn't make sense.

Anyone who thinks communism is a nice idea either doesn't understand communism or doesn't use the word "nice" the same way I do.

Textbook Communism - Everybody is shaped by a happy and productive society into becoming happy and productive people. Everybody orks at their favourite jobs regardless of complexity, and freely uses the fruits of each others labours. No wealth is neccesary, because private property is non-existant. Resource conflict does not occur because a truly productive society will always cater for all a man's needs and wants amply.

It is a bloody nice idea - and from a christian point of view it is the political system that comes closest to Jesus' 'Kingdom of Heaven on Earth', as private property and wealth are seen as direct complements of evil (Rich Man-Heaven/Camel-Eye of a needle) blah.

All the bloodshed, genocides, etc, etc, etc have absolutely nothing to do with Marx and his Communist Manifesto. Marx believed that Communism would simply happen with a little bit of encouragement, but that all would accept it as a better way of life (no secret police, no dictatorship, no violent revolution). To judge communism on real world dickheads who champion a cuase is to judge democracy on the democratic process that led Hitler to power, or possibly G.W.)

the way i understand it, "self defence" is when you use the minimum force necessary to prevent harm. Obviously, the greater the threat, the higher the minimum is, for example, if someone attacked you with bare fists and you shot them in the leg, its GBH, excessive force and potentially attempted murder. If they attack you with an assault rifle and you shoot them in the head, as long as they fired first, or threatened to fire first then your a free man, usually.

scale it down a bit, if someone jumps on your back and punches you in the street, you can throw them off and put them on the ground, with force. If you then go on and kick them while their down, its assault.

I suggest you read the work of Samenow. Most of the current theories on rehabilitation are worthless, and there are some sets of criminals who can never be rehabilitated.

It's a deeply held mindset - not a disease or an affliction.


In the UK is a centre designed to make inmates of Her Majesty's Prison Service empathise with their victims and the effects of their crimes. It is something like a 6 week course where prisoners are given more personal freedom but are required to discuss things with volunteer victims of crime, psychologists and each other. I don't know the exact statistics but it is something like the re-offence rates of prisoners who have been through this course drop by 50%.

It is not re-education, or wiping personalities, but simply explaining to people the results of their actions, and quite often it is the first time these people have ever thought about things like this.

Logically we are all self-interested and it simply needs to be explained to these people that their self-interest is comproised by criminal activities (and more importantly the justice/legal system). Rehabilitation based on punishment (a la traditional prison practice) is obviously cruel and stupid (what does a dog react more to - the anger in his master's face or the slp on his side?)

Textbook Communism - Everybody is shaped by a happy and productive society into becoming happy and productive people. Everybody orks at their favourite jobs regardless of complexity, and freely uses the fruits of each others labours. No wealth is neccesary, because private property is non-existant. Resource conflict does not occur because a truly productive society will always cater for all a man's needs and wants amply.
I don't think that me ploughing a field all day and them some skanky hippys taking all the food I grew is "nice", so I guess we really are using that word differently.

It is a bloody nice idea - and from a christian point of view it is the political system that comes closest to Jesus' 'Kingdom of Heaven on Earth', as private property and wealth are seen as direct complements of evil (Rich Man-Heaven/Camel-Eye of a needle) blah.
I don't think there's anything wrong with living comfortably or keeping what you earn, but then I'm not a Christian.

All the bloodshed, genocides, etc, etc, etc have absolutely nothing to do with Marx and his Communist Manifesto. Marx believed that Communism would simply happen with a little bit of encouragement, but that all would accept it as a better way of life (no secret police, no dictatorship, no violent revolution).
I know what communism is, I've read Marx, and I still don't like it. Still, the dictatorship and secret police were inevitable from the way Marx advocated achieving communism.
To judge communism on real world dickheads who champion a cuase is to judge democracy on the democratic process that led Hitler to power, or possibly G.W.)
Judging a system by how it actually works when attempted seems to me like the only way to judge it. Democracy is vastly deficient and people should wake up and realise it. It leads to massive internal violence (see my post from before) and there are better ways such as voluntary govts which only use violence to defend their citizens and their property.

In the UK is a centre designed to make inmates of Her Majesty's Prison Service empathise with their victims and the effects of their crimes. It is something like a 6 week course where prisoners are given more personal freedom but are required to discuss things with volunteer victims of crime, psychologists and each other. I don't know the exact statistics but it is something like the re-offence rates of prisoners who have been through this course drop by 50%.

It is not re-education, or wiping personalities, but simply explaining to people the results of their actions, and quite often it is the first time these people have ever thought about things like this.

Logically we are all self-interested and it simply needs to be explained to these people that their self-interest is comproised by criminal activities (and more importantly the justice/legal system). Rehabilitation based on punishment (a la traditional prison practice) is obviously cruel and stupid (what does a dog react more to - the anger in his master's face or the slp on his side?)

Samenow's work isn't re-education or wiping personalities, either. Nor is it some feel-good technique to make the criminal empathize with the victim. He's well over the 80 percent mark on rehabilitation - but he identifies first who will be impossible to rehabilitate and who will reoffend - and he hasn't been wrong on any of those yet.

I'm all for having those who can't be rehabilitated stuffed into a meat grinder.

the way i understand it, "self defence" is when you use the minimum force necessary to prevent harm. Obviously, the greater the threat, the higher the minimum is, for example, if someone attacked you with bare fists and you shot them in the leg, its GBH, excessive force and potentially attempted murder. If they attack you with an assault rifle and you shoot them in the head, as long as they fired first, or threatened to fire first then your a free man, usually.

scale it down a bit, if someone jumps on your back and punches you in the street, you can throw them off and put them on the ground, with force. If you then go on and kick them while their down, its assault.
If someone attacks you with fists and you have a gun then you've got to worry about them taking the gun and shooting YOU. The problem with "minimum force" is that you don't know what the minimum is until you don't use it! If someone attacked my granny with his fists should she try to punch him back, or should she whip out a pistol?

If someone attacks you with fists and you have a gun then you've got to worry about them taking the gun and shooting YOU. The problem with "minimum force" is that you don't know what the minimum is until you don't use it! If someone attacked my granny with his fists should she try to punch him back, or should she whip out a pistol?

The "taking the gun and shooting you" occurs so rarely in the US. It occurs more often with the police than it does with armed citizens in confrontations with criminals.

Pulling out a pistol doesn't mean you'll shoot. It merely presents that as an option. It does, however, often result in resolution of the situation without further action.

People on the wrong end of the gun tend to run away.

Pulling out a pistol doesn't mean you'll shoot. It merely presents that as an option. It does, however, often result in resolution of the situation without further action.

People on the wrong end of the gun tend to run away.
Sure, but I was replying to the guy who was talking about shooting the other dude in the leg, not just pointing a gun at him. I agree with you. Threatening him with the gun is the obious thing to do, but if he still tries to attack you then by all means blow his shins off.

Sure, but I was replying to the guy who was talking about shooting the other dude in the leg, not just pointing a gun at him. I agree with you. Threatening him with the gun is the obious thing to do, but if he still tries to attack you then by all means blow his shins off.

One of the problems with the general discussion of the justification of force is:

a) which actors are we talking about - individuals or organizations or states?
b) what scale of weapons? Are we including nuclear weapons and biological weapons?
c) which societal and religious norms are we observing?

And in your example, in the US, it's not legal to shoot to wound. You will definitely be charged with mayhem.

a) which actors are we talking about - individuals or organizations or states?
Organisations and states are not actors. Only individuals are. I don't respect people who say that you should be able to use agressive violence just because you have a badge and a uniform. That's just mindless.

b) what scale of weapons? Are we including nuclear weapons and biological weapons?
I don't think the weapon is important. Is there any difference between killing 100 000 in Nagasaki with a nuke and killing 120 000 in Dresden with conventional bombs? (Well, there's a difference of 20 000 but that's not what I meant.)

c) which societal and religious norms are we observing?
Why should I change my opinion just because of what my idiot neighbours believe? I'll take account of their opinions in so far as it'll keep me out of more trouble.

And in your example, in the US, it's not legal to shoot to wound. You will definitely be charged with mayhem.
So I disagree with a law. I'll add it to the list.

I personally do not believe that force is ever justified, though in our planetary society as a whole, it is unavoidable.

If it is unavoidable to use force for your own safety, that makes it justified.

Good and evil. As we wring hands worrying about external perceptions of our moral judgements we ignore evil. It is always just to attack and destroy evil. Modern society often refuses to deal with the authors of good and evil because it's called judgemental.

Force is justified when ones life is at risk.

Organisations and states are not actors. Only individuals are. I don't respect people who say that you should be able to use agressive violence just because you have a badge and a uniform. That's just mindless.

Actually, actors usually means on the international stage (stage-actor geddit)
but a domestic analogy can be put forward where the states are individuals living in a larger state (ie the world). Therefore to say states act like individuals, while flawed, is a close enough analogy. It was originally put forward by John Stuart Mill in the late 19th c.

I completely agree with GlobesrUs. I am a die-hard Liberal Socialist, the Eurasian kind, not the wimpy U.S. kind, and I think nature is the way to go. Down with the Corporations! Down with pollution!

If it is unavoidable to use force for your own safety, that makes it justified.

Good and evil. As we wring hands worrying about external perceptions of our moral judgements we ignore evil. It is always just to attack and destroy evil. Modern society often refuses to deal with the authors of good and evil because it's called judgemental.

That's right: everything is relative... there are no such things as "right" and "wrong". Everything is value-neutral.

hehe

I completely agree with GlobesrUs. I am a die-hard Liberal Socialist, the Eurasian kind, not the wimpy U.S. kind, and I think nature is the way to go. Down with the Corporations! Down with pollution!

Down with people who work hard! Down with the punishment of sloth!

hehe

As is so often said: "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."

Make love not war people. :mp5:

Morally speaking violent force has got to be bad/wrong. If you are being attacked then one should deal with the threat in a non-violent way - supress it and then convert it/lock it up.


A crackhead attacks you with a screwdriver...nonviolently convert him from his addiction and disregard for your life?


But if operations were designed to force the enemy to surrender then one immediately gains a moral superiority.

Did the US gain moral superiority in dropping the Atomic Bomb, forcing the end of the war, on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


In some sense Mustard Gas is morally better than a machine gun in that it disables enemy fighters as opposed to killing them.

Mustard gas has killed many. It's a stretch to say it's less lethal than a machine gun. The 5.56mm NATO round was designed as a wounding round versus a killing round. A dead guy immediately costs his army transportation of the corpse and burial. A wounded man must be moved by at least two soldiers, taking three out of the fight, and transported to expensive medical care which drains money away from combat operations.


Northern American Indian tribes had no wars because they all shared the same land (the only territorally sacred places were the burial grounds). They had conflict but this was often resolved by ritualised combat...


When Hernando de Soto started to cross the Mississippi River near the bluffs of Present day Memphis he was greeted by 2,000 Casqui braves in canoes. Chief Casqui (also the name of the tribe-maybe the Quapaw tribe) had been at war with the larger tribe, the Pacaha for many years. When de Soto turned north to visit the Pacaha, the Casqui followed.

Chief Casqui and his braves massacred the village, desecrated holy sites and carried some away as slaves. Their conflict was generations old. The pre-Columbian peaceful Indian hippy is a myth. They warred like the rest of man, maybe not on the same scale but warred none the less.