Violence is typically taken up by actors on their behalf. In an organized state this is, well, generally the state. In non-state activity, this tends to be their friends and family. In societies with weak or nonexistent centralized states, you see this in the form of honor societies being willing to have the young and healthy take up arms and feuds on behalf of offenses against elderly, children, or disabled who they have ties with.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
Well, if the true basal motivation driving life and decisions is the threat of violence, and we are merely outsourcing our violence to a larger entity, we have established a few fundamental constraints on our ethos. First, we believe violence is necessary. Second, violence is justified. And third, that the only things preventing us from using violence to gain advantage over others is the size of the threat.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values. Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources… That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
It is not that I really disagree here, or anything like that. My intuition is sending up hazy red flags in a very half ass signal from an unexplored region of thought. I see what you’re trying to get at, and in a certain scope it makes sense, but I am concerned about the broader overall implications and where this leads. I think you’re primarily posing the idea as a different scope of violence, but I am focused on all types of violence, where invoking the word implies all potential scopes.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you. So to me, sure, the police can be helpful, – sometimes, but the principal outsourcing is military, and if the only thing stopping you is violence, there is no reason to withhold that violence when accountability is unchecked by a larger entity.
I don’t want violence. Maybe it is my mindset of growing up always being bigger than all of my friends. People were afraid of me before they got to know me. I’m like the exact opposite IRL, but I don’t have to fear people from their physical threat in general. There is always someone bigger and all that, but I’m usually seen as not worth the effort and risk by others with that mindset. I was usually the kid that stepped into the middle of a fight and said you have to hit me first.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself. It was simply the right thing to do from the moral high ground because I want to live in a world where “first, do no harm” is the fundamental motivational factor. I do not wish violence, or vengeance, or retribution on anyone. Two wrongs never make a right. I want stalemate, reasonably amicable confinement for safety. Even when I do not like an entity, I still want them to be well and unharmed.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources…
How does that follow in any way?
That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
Violence here is not a ‘basal motivation’, violence is a constraint upon action. There is a distinct difference. You don’t buy an apple because you crave to use the coercive apparatus of the state against an innocent merchant. You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
If you think that cooperation is the law of the jungle between strangers, you really need to read up on early human societies.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you.
Man, if you have ever done any research on alternative legal systems to modern, Western legal systems, it might become more apparent that there are far worse systems out there than our’s - even including the US, which is one of the poorer of the modern lot. And in societies without robust legal systems to regulate violence, things are even fucking worse than that.
Pointing out that the rich have outsized advantages in our system is true, and a necessary point to make as a general criticism of the system. Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself.
Okay? How does that in any way contradict that the usage of violence as deterrent in societies?
First off, I love this conversation. I’m delayed because of a combo of sleep deprivation and working on a major design project in CAD. My creative CAD mindset is not very compatible with such a philosophical subject.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
Do you believe there is some force that justifies separating the collective governing entity as conditional? If the stereotypical person is only shamed into submission by a threat of violence, what forces are in play that curb the same behavior when they collectivize? Why should the governance turn inward only? In your apple analogy, there are two fundamental forms of violence, both the individual stealing – an act of offensive aggressive violence, and the merchant cheating the individual – an act of devious opportunity generally speaking. Why should a government only carry out this violence internally towards constituents, but not externally towards others in the equivalent of stealing the apple?
This is “how it follows” in my mind. A government is not independent of the people and cultures it represents. If the people are motivated by violence, so is the government, unless you have some kind of mechanism that can clearly alter why one can act in some different way than the other. If there is such a mechanism, I would argue that this is the deeper fundamental truth.
You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
This seems extremely idealized and unrealistic compared to reality. The State does nothing against most theft on both sides of transactions. Almost all goods sold are being cheated to various extents in the USA. I’ve worked retail and even when several thousands of dollars are involved, the police are useless. If their coercion is my only ethical or moral regulation, it is a poor motivator.
I think the vast majority of people historically and in the present are honest and want to be fair with each other. The majority of history is anonymous because good, regular honest people do not write or record their mundane lives. The recorded accounts that exist are from or about the notable monsters.
When I ran my business painting cars, I dealt with lots of dishonest businesses. I was cheated many times, but that burns bridges. I worked with many of the same 3rd party vendors at many different used car dealerships. We would all talk about stuff like this. When someone doesn’t pay their bills, everyone basically pulls the business’s credit and demands immediate payment, raises their rates, or stops working with the business. Those people never did well or stayed in business for very long. It is never in a person’s best interest to behave badly in their local region. At the individual level, the person is not primarily restrained by a threat of violence, but because of opportunities and stability required for cohabitation. The only scope where one is restrained by violence, in my opinion, is if long term planning and well-being are not factors. In this context, we may as well substitute humans for any other moderately complex animal.
Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
That is offensive to me because of my situation and how the people that caused my physical disability had no repercussions. I was priced out of any restitution. I am quite literally the collateral damage with my life wrecked by this in so many ways I am not going to mention.
Anyways, I acknowledge that there is a threat of violence, but I don’t see that as any deterrent myself. I view this violence like shame based ethics in religion. Shame can’t motivate positive behavior. It can only discourage what it labels as wrong behavior. I find all such systems of ethics deeply flawed. They incentivise opposing behavior without getting caught, and they create a culture without individual independent ethics. If this is the only motivation, I can easily thrive by not getting caught.
How would you describe your awareness of all the products you interact with daily? Could you tell me how each product you encounter is being exploited for dishonest profit?
I understand the premise, but it comes across as unrealistically idealist in practice and execution to the point where holding it up linea standard is a billboard for why one should violate it in practice.
My policy is to trust openly, but never forgive infractions against me. I have no expectations of enforcement by some government. I only take measured risks I can afford to lose.
Violence is not the basic force driving life and decisions. It’s just one of the basic factors that helps to structure our society (and all societies).
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
I get what you’re going for, but maybe work on the wording? Because my immediate thought was, alright, you lay on the ground and I’ll drop a nuclear bomb, and let’s see which was more destructive.
“Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs…It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.”
-Mahatma Ghandi, 1946
Ghandi’s militant non-violence was blind to how actual historical justice movements succeed. It turns out that you actually need both violent and nonviolent resistance for any resistance to succeed. Sure, there was the Ghandi wing throwing the British out of India, but there was also a radical militant Hindu movement trying to throw the British out at gunpoint. The existence of this radical and violent side of the movement gave space for a nonviolent ‘moderate’ like Ghandi to come in and play the role of peacemaker. Without the violent resistance, the nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists, and the state can come in and arrest/kill them all. It’s only the existence of an actual violent wing that prevents the peaceful moderates from being labeled as violent extremists.
Or look at MLK. He was peaceful and nonviolent, and they still called him a terrorist. But his message resonated with middle America as it contrasted to the explicitly violent movements like the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, etc. And the powers that be still killed him for it, regardless of his nonviolence.
Sorry, I just take a really dim view to the nonviolence of Ghandi.
You’re right that successful movements often have both violent and nonviolent wings - but the nonviolent components don’t succeed because of the violent ones. They succeed despite them. The research is pretty clear on this: nonviolent campaigns are actually more likely to achieve their goals than violent ones, and they’re more likely to lead to stable democratic outcomes.
Your claim that “without violent resistance, nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists” is historically backwards. Nonviolent movements get labeled as extremist precisely when they’re associated with violence, not when they’re separate from it. The Civil Rights Movement’s greatest victories came when they maintained strict nonviolent discipline - Birmingham, Selma, the March on Washington. Every time violence entered the picture, it gave opponents ammunition to dismiss the entire movement.
And about Gandhi needing violent militants to succeed - this ignores how the independence movement actually worked. The violent revolutionary groups you’re thinking of (like the Hindustan Republican Association) were largely marginalized by the time of Gandhi’s major campaigns. His mass mobilization strategies worked because they were genuinely nonviolent and drew broad participation precisely because people knew they wouldn’t be asked to commit violence.
The “good cop/bad cop” theory sounds intuitive but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. What actually makes nonviolent resistance effective is mass participation, strategic planning, and moral leverage - not the threat of violence lurking in the background.
Violence is typically taken up by actors on their behalf. In an organized state this is, well, generally the state. In non-state activity, this tends to be their friends and family. In societies with weak or nonexistent centralized states, you see this in the form of honor societies being willing to have the young and healthy take up arms and feuds on behalf of offenses against elderly, children, or disabled who they have ties with.
I feel no desire to outsource offense, and that is probably what bugs me most. Your theory seems to justify expansion and to turn outward instead of inward. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying in this regard.
It’s not their theory. If someone explains basic theory of relativity to you, will you call it their theory?
What?
Well, if the true basal motivation driving life and decisions is the threat of violence, and we are merely outsourcing our violence to a larger entity, we have established a few fundamental constraints on our ethos. First, we believe violence is necessary. Second, violence is justified. And third, that the only things preventing us from using violence to gain advantage over others is the size of the threat.
To every force there is an equal and opposite counterpart. We have established that violence to gain advantage is justified, and we outsourced our violence to a much larger entity. Therefore by this fundamental basal ethos, we must expect that that larger entity shares our values. Only now, this entity has many opportunities where it has no larger rival. It must then use violence to gain advantage. This plays out as an expansionist policy because as weaker entities are encountered, this government must act in the exploitive interest of its constituency and destroy or incorporate the smaller entity’s resources… That is what I see as far as I can gather from this abstraction of violence as a basal motivation underpinning all social engagement.
It is not that I really disagree here, or anything like that. My intuition is sending up hazy red flags in a very half ass signal from an unexplored region of thought. I see what you’re trying to get at, and in a certain scope it makes sense, but I am concerned about the broader overall implications and where this leads. I think you’re primarily posing the idea as a different scope of violence, but I am focused on all types of violence, where invoking the word implies all potential scopes.
I’m also super cynical about the legal system, with extensive first hand experience of how it is not in any way shape or form a justice system outside of fantasy fiction. If you do not have around $250k to burn, the US legal system is not made to help you. So to me, sure, the police can be helpful, – sometimes, but the principal outsourcing is military, and if the only thing stopping you is violence, there is no reason to withhold that violence when accountability is unchecked by a larger entity.
I don’t want violence. Maybe it is my mindset of growing up always being bigger than all of my friends. People were afraid of me before they got to know me. I’m like the exact opposite IRL, but I don’t have to fear people from their physical threat in general. There is always someone bigger and all that, but I’m usually seen as not worth the effort and risk by others with that mindset. I was usually the kid that stepped into the middle of a fight and said you have to hit me first.
From some perspective, you might say I was acting as the larger outsourced entity in the aforementioned scenario, but then what was my motivational factor? In truth, it was kindness, empathy, and altruism. I saw a need, I recognized the opportunity, and I put myself in danger for the benefit of someone else and with no potential benefit to myself. It was simply the right thing to do from the moral high ground because I want to live in a world where “first, do no harm” is the fundamental motivational factor. I do not wish violence, or vengeance, or retribution on anyone. Two wrongs never make a right. I want stalemate, reasonably amicable confinement for safety. Even when I do not like an entity, I still want them to be well and unharmed.
Not really. As I mentioned, the outsourcing of violence is conditional - the larger entity can only expect compliance insofar as it seeks to address the concerns of those under its jurisdiction.
How does that follow in any way?
Violence here is not a ‘basal motivation’, violence is a constraint upon action. There is a distinct difference. You don’t buy an apple because you crave to use the coercive apparatus of the state against an innocent merchant. You are restrained in your options to purchase, rather than theft, by the coercive apparatus of the state; and on the other side of the coin, that same coercive apparatus forbids the merchant explicitly cheating you in this interaction.
If you think that cooperation is the law of the jungle between strangers, you really need to read up on early human societies.
Man, if you have ever done any research on alternative legal systems to modern, Western legal systems, it might become more apparent that there are far worse systems out there than our’s - even including the US, which is one of the poorer of the modern lot. And in societies without robust legal systems to regulate violence, things are even fucking worse than that.
Pointing out that the rich have outsized advantages in our system is true, and a necessary point to make as a general criticism of the system. Using it as some sort of proof that only the rich benefit from it is utter insanity.
Okay? How does that in any way contradict that the usage of violence as deterrent in societies?
First off, I love this conversation. I’m delayed because of a combo of sleep deprivation and working on a major design project in CAD. My creative CAD mindset is not very compatible with such a philosophical subject.
Do you believe there is some force that justifies separating the collective governing entity as conditional? If the stereotypical person is only shamed into submission by a threat of violence, what forces are in play that curb the same behavior when they collectivize? Why should the governance turn inward only? In your apple analogy, there are two fundamental forms of violence, both the individual stealing – an act of offensive aggressive violence, and the merchant cheating the individual – an act of devious opportunity generally speaking. Why should a government only carry out this violence internally towards constituents, but not externally towards others in the equivalent of stealing the apple?
This is “how it follows” in my mind. A government is not independent of the people and cultures it represents. If the people are motivated by violence, so is the government, unless you have some kind of mechanism that can clearly alter why one can act in some different way than the other. If there is such a mechanism, I would argue that this is the deeper fundamental truth.
This seems extremely idealized and unrealistic compared to reality. The State does nothing against most theft on both sides of transactions. Almost all goods sold are being cheated to various extents in the USA. I’ve worked retail and even when several thousands of dollars are involved, the police are useless. If their coercion is my only ethical or moral regulation, it is a poor motivator.
I think the vast majority of people historically and in the present are honest and want to be fair with each other. The majority of history is anonymous because good, regular honest people do not write or record their mundane lives. The recorded accounts that exist are from or about the notable monsters.
When I ran my business painting cars, I dealt with lots of dishonest businesses. I was cheated many times, but that burns bridges. I worked with many of the same 3rd party vendors at many different used car dealerships. We would all talk about stuff like this. When someone doesn’t pay their bills, everyone basically pulls the business’s credit and demands immediate payment, raises their rates, or stops working with the business. Those people never did well or stayed in business for very long. It is never in a person’s best interest to behave badly in their local region. At the individual level, the person is not primarily restrained by a threat of violence, but because of opportunities and stability required for cohabitation. The only scope where one is restrained by violence, in my opinion, is if long term planning and well-being are not factors. In this context, we may as well substitute humans for any other moderately complex animal.
That is offensive to me because of my situation and how the people that caused my physical disability had no repercussions. I was priced out of any restitution. I am quite literally the collateral damage with my life wrecked by this in so many ways I am not going to mention.
Anyways, I acknowledge that there is a threat of violence, but I don’t see that as any deterrent myself. I view this violence like shame based ethics in religion. Shame can’t motivate positive behavior. It can only discourage what it labels as wrong behavior. I find all such systems of ethics deeply flawed. They incentivise opposing behavior without getting caught, and they create a culture without individual independent ethics. If this is the only motivation, I can easily thrive by not getting caught.
How would you describe your awareness of all the products you interact with daily? Could you tell me how each product you encounter is being exploited for dishonest profit?
I understand the premise, but it comes across as unrealistically idealist in practice and execution to the point where holding it up linea standard is a billboard for why one should violate it in practice.
My policy is to trust openly, but never forgive infractions against me. I have no expectations of enforcement by some government. I only take measured risks I can afford to lose.
Violence is not the basic force driving life and decisions. It’s just one of the basic factors that helps to structure our society (and all societies).
Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.
It’s not, though.
I get what you’re going for, but maybe work on the wording? Because my immediate thought was, alright, you lay on the ground and I’ll drop a nuclear bomb, and let’s see which was more destructive.
It’s a direct quote from Gandhi.
Gandhi was a very flawed man.
And Ghandi was a fucking idiot.
Well that sure is an opinion I haven’t heard before
-Mahatma Ghandi, 1946
Ghandi’s militant non-violence was blind to how actual historical justice movements succeed. It turns out that you actually need both violent and nonviolent resistance for any resistance to succeed. Sure, there was the Ghandi wing throwing the British out of India, but there was also a radical militant Hindu movement trying to throw the British out at gunpoint. The existence of this radical and violent side of the movement gave space for a nonviolent ‘moderate’ like Ghandi to come in and play the role of peacemaker. Without the violent resistance, the nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists, and the state can come in and arrest/kill them all. It’s only the existence of an actual violent wing that prevents the peaceful moderates from being labeled as violent extremists.
Or look at MLK. He was peaceful and nonviolent, and they still called him a terrorist. But his message resonated with middle America as it contrasted to the explicitly violent movements like the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, etc. And the powers that be still killed him for it, regardless of his nonviolence.
Sorry, I just take a really dim view to the nonviolence of Ghandi.
You have the causality backwards.
You’re right that successful movements often have both violent and nonviolent wings - but the nonviolent components don’t succeed because of the violent ones. They succeed despite them. The research is pretty clear on this: nonviolent campaigns are actually more likely to achieve their goals than violent ones, and they’re more likely to lead to stable democratic outcomes.
Your claim that “without violent resistance, nonviolent resistance becomes branded as terrorists” is historically backwards. Nonviolent movements get labeled as extremist precisely when they’re associated with violence, not when they’re separate from it. The Civil Rights Movement’s greatest victories came when they maintained strict nonviolent discipline - Birmingham, Selma, the March on Washington. Every time violence entered the picture, it gave opponents ammunition to dismiss the entire movement.
And about Gandhi needing violent militants to succeed - this ignores how the independence movement actually worked. The violent revolutionary groups you’re thinking of (like the Hindustan Republican Association) were largely marginalized by the time of Gandhi’s major campaigns. His mass mobilization strategies worked because they were genuinely nonviolent and drew broad participation precisely because people knew they wouldn’t be asked to commit violence.
The “good cop/bad cop” theory sounds intuitive but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. What actually makes nonviolent resistance effective is mass participation, strategic planning, and moral leverage - not the threat of violence lurking in the background.