Daily Anarchist Forum
April 09, 2020, 05:37:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: Violence as a Tactic  (Read 12763 times)
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2013, 06:52:47 PM »

If you haven't been violent in your past I don't see any reason why pacifists wouldn't sell you metal. But if you had a track record of violence, you would likely experience heavy boycott, possibly even until you starve to death.

Also, don't forget about gunpowder and bullets. No one machinist is going to arm himself very well if everybody else has boycotted you.

I hadn't forgotten.  Gunpowder, at least black powder, is easy.  Sulphur, saltpeter, and charcoal.  The hard stuff is mercury fulminate for caps and drawn brass cartridges, but I could do a working firearm and ammo.  Might be a little steam-punk meets the eighteenth-century looking, but I could do it.  Crossbow would be easier. 

I have officially lost track of what this argument was about.

What was your original point about a thousand pacifists on an island versus a thousand normal people?
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
Seth King
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
*****
Posts: 3211



View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2013, 07:25:13 PM »

There was no point. It was just a thought experiment.
Logged

When are you moving to New Hampshire?
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2013, 07:35:03 PM »

There was no point. It was just a thought experiment.

Ah.  Not bad.  I thought you were advocating one side or the other, in which case it was unclear, but if you were just looking at it, fun thread.
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
Victor
Full Member
***
Posts: 227


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 12, 2013, 08:27:17 PM »

See, this is cool. This is an actual intelligent, well-thought out debate. Why isn't the rest of the internet like this?

The participants here were carefully self selected for accepting reasonable ideas and seeking to deal with each other through reason and trade rather than bullying, hate-mongering and coercion. The site is a microcosim of an An-cap society.  The rest of the Internet is more reflective of the society we have now.

I realize it was a rhetorical question, but the point was worth articulating.

I agree, that is worth articulating. And I'm glad I found this microcosm of an An-cap society. It's nice. Smiley
Logged

'To be happy, stay hidden.'
~Yopie, quoted in Under Paris by Neil Shea and Stephen Alvarez.
My Bitmessage Address: BM-NBofBs1WsHq4Z1MsS9CFEhistf8kLBy9
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2013, 04:39:28 AM »

@Agrarian_Agorist in regards to George's post on his blog about a "Libertarian Guerilla Army" I would disagree with you on him being a pacifist...I think a true pacifist would claim that violence is always immoral even in self-defense and try to persuade others (peacefully) that they should just take what they are given....George on the other hand believes self-defense IS legitimate, but from my understanding he simply chooses to go the route of non-violence himself, but understands that if you, me, or Seth decide to use violence for self-defense he won't complain so long as it is self defense.
Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2013, 08:19:28 AM »

@Agrarian_Agorist in regards to George's post on his blog about a "Libertarian Guerilla Army" I would disagree with you on him being a pacifist...I think a true pacifist would claim that violence is always immoral even in self-defense and try to persuade others (peacefully) that they should just take what they are given....George on the other hand believes self-defense IS legitimate, but from my understanding he simply chooses to go the route of non-violence himself, but understands that if you, me, or Seth decide to use violence for self-defense he won't complain so long as it is self defense.

While George says directly that he is not a pacifist and that he believes in self-defense, what he implies by everything else he says is quite the opposite.  He stated in an interview debate with Chris Cantwell that he believes people would get tired of committing violence.  If we take this with what he said in the article, something to the effect of that he wont hurt anybody, then we can see that his idea of self-defense is parrying the attackers attack. If he is unwilling to hurt somebody even in defense of his own life, then he IS a pacifist.
Logged
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2013, 04:28:07 PM »

While George says directly that he is not a pacifist and that he believes in self-defense, what he implies by everything else he says is quite the opposite.  He stated in an interview debate with Chris Cantwell that he believes people would get tired of committing violence.  If we take this with what he said in the article, something to the effect of that he wont hurt anybody, then we can see that his idea of self-defense is parrying the attackers attack. If he is unwilling to hurt somebody even in defense of his own life, then he IS a pacifist.

I think I see what the issue is...you and I are using different interpretations of "pacifist" according my interpretation, he isn't a pacifist since he is agrees that while he personally would not use violence in any circumstance, if I were to use violence in self-defense it would be legitimate, whereas from my understanding, the fact that he won't use violence himself is all that is necessary to be defined a 'pacifist" even if he believes violence in self-defense is legitimate for him or others to use.
Logged

SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2013, 06:05:57 PM »

While George says directly that he is not a pacifist and that he believes in self-defense, what he implies by everything else he says is quite the opposite.  He stated in an interview debate with Chris Cantwell that he believes people would get tired of committing violence.  If we take this with what he said in the article, something to the effect of that he wont hurt anybody, then we can see that his idea of self-defense is parrying the attackers attack. If he is unwilling to hurt somebody even in defense of his own life, then he IS a pacifist.

I think I see what the issue is...you and I are using different interpretations of "pacifist" according my interpretation, he isn't a pacifist since he is agrees that while he personally would not use violence in any circumstance, if I were to use violence in self-defense it would be legitimate, whereas from my understanding, the fact that he won't use violence himself is all that is necessary to be defined a 'pacifist" even if he believes violence in self-defense is legitimate for him or others to use.

A personal commitment to non-violence is the accepted definition of pacifism, it doesn't require the condemnation of those who's beliefs are different.  I will say, though, that any so-called "pacifist" who will hire their violence done, or allow someone else to do violence directly on their behalf, is just a hypocrite.  Preferring to hire ones violence done by experts is fine, not morally different from me preferring to let the mechanic change my oil rather than doing it myself, but it is not pacifism.
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2013, 11:01:17 PM »

While George says directly that he is not a pacifist and that he believes in self-defense, what he implies by everything else he says is quite the opposite.  He stated in an interview debate with Chris Cantwell that he believes people would get tired of committing violence.  If we take this with what he said in the article, something to the effect of that he wont hurt anybody, then we can see that his idea of self-defense is parrying the attackers attack. If he is unwilling to hurt somebody even in defense of his own life, then he IS a pacifist.

I think I see what the issue is...you and I are using different interpretations of "pacifist" according my interpretation, he isn't a pacifist since he is agrees that while he personally would not use violence in any circumstance, if I were to use violence in self-defense it would be legitimate, whereas from my understanding, the fact that he won't use violence himself is all that is necessary to be defined a 'pacifist" even if he believes violence in self-defense is legitimate for him or others to use.

A personal commitment to non-violence is the accepted definition of pacifism, it doesn't require the condemnation of those who's beliefs are different.  I will say, though, that any so-called "pacifist" who will hire their violence done, or allow someone else to do violence directly on their behalf, is just a hypocrite.  Preferring to hire ones violence done by experts is fine, not morally different from me preferring to let the mechanic change my oil rather than doing it myself, but it is not pacifism.

So by your definition of pacifism is self defence moral?
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2013, 08:22:11 AM »

While George says directly that he is not a pacifist and that he believes in self-defense, what he implies by everything else he says is quite the opposite.  He stated in an interview debate with Chris Cantwell that he believes people would get tired of committing violence.  If we take this with what he said in the article, something to the effect of that he wont hurt anybody, then we can see that his idea of self-defense is parrying the attackers attack. If he is unwilling to hurt somebody even in defense of his own life, then he IS a pacifist.

I think I see what the issue is...you and I are using different interpretations of "pacifist" according my interpretation, he isn't a pacifist since he is agrees that while he personally would not use violence in any circumstance, if I were to use violence in self-defense it would be legitimate, whereas from my understanding, the fact that he won't use violence himself is all that is necessary to be defined a 'pacifist" even if he believes violence in self-defense is legitimate for him or others to use.

A personal commitment to non-violence is the accepted definition of pacifism, it doesn't require the condemnation of those who's beliefs are different.  I will say, though, that any so-called "pacifist" who will hire their violence done, or allow someone else to do violence directly on their behalf, is just a hypocrite.  Preferring to hire ones violence done by experts is fine, not morally different from me preferring to let the mechanic change my oil rather than doing it myself, but it is not pacifism.

So by your definition of pacifism is self defence moral?

Oddly phrased.  I would say that I believe self defense is moral, but it is not consistent with my definition of pacifism. 

I am reluctant to use violence, it is probably my least favorite way to solve a problem, but I am not a pacifist.  I also do not make a moral distinction between using violence against someone who is doing something I don't like, and calling the cops on them, to come be violent for me.  The moral difference between pulling a trigger vs hiring a hit man is nil, even if the hit man has a badge.
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2013, 09:06:27 AM »

While George says directly that he is not a pacifist and that he believes in self-defense, what he implies by everything else he says is quite the opposite.  He stated in an interview debate with Chris Cantwell that he believes people would get tired of committing violence.  If we take this with what he said in the article, something to the effect of that he wont hurt anybody, then we can see that his idea of self-defense is parrying the attackers attack. If he is unwilling to hurt somebody even in defense of his own life, then he IS a pacifist.

I think I see what the issue is...you and I are using different interpretations of "pacifist" according my interpretation, he isn't a pacifist since he is agrees that while he personally would not use violence in any circumstance, if I were to use violence in self-defense it would be legitimate, whereas from my understanding, the fact that he won't use violence himself is all that is necessary to be defined a 'pacifist" even if he believes violence in self-defense is legitimate for him or others to use.

A personal commitment to non-violence is the accepted definition of pacifism, it doesn't require the condemnation of those who's beliefs are different.  I will say, though, that any so-called "pacifist" who will hire their violence done, or allow someone else to do violence directly on their behalf, is just a hypocrite.  Preferring to hire ones violence done by experts is fine, not morally different from me preferring to let the mechanic change my oil rather than doing it myself, but it is not pacifism.

So by your definition of pacifism is self defence moral?

Oddly phrased.  I would say that I believe self defense is moral, but it is not consistent with my definition of pacifism. 

I am reluctant to use violence, it is probably my least favorite way to solve a problem, but I am not a pacifist.  I also do not make a moral distinction between using violence against someone who is doing something I don't like, and calling the cops on them, to come be violent for me.  The moral difference between pulling a trigger vs hiring a hit man is nil, even if the hit man has a badge.

I have an interest in you explaining this further.

Quote
I also do not make a moral distinction between using violence against someone who is doing something I don't like, and calling the cops on them, to come be violent for me.

Especially the part where you say "...doing something I don't like."  So, if somebody is playing music to loudly do you think calling a cop or using violence is appropriate?  What about an open fire?  Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the authority to use force against the perpetrator; whatever
happened to the NAP and non-initiation of force?
Logged
Krantz
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2013, 04:01:31 AM »

While I personally would probably chose to live on an island of 1000 pacifists there is a problem of sustainability of such society  - expressed in a known hawk and dove game (e.g. http://rightreason.typepad.com/right_reason/2012/09/leo-tolstoy-a-human-dove-par-execellence-so-lets-play-a-game-of-hawks-and-doves-the-way-that-it-works-is.html) - initiating violence becomes especially profitable when no one fights back, so it said that it is unlikely that such society will not eventually become a mixed one (and at the moment I cannot recollect any historical examples of "all doves" societies).

I would say that examples of "all hawks" societies would be plenty - I am inclined to put many "native tribes" in this category (although I might be mistaken here cos I didn't really studied them much) - the problem here is that they waste so much recourses that they seem to never reach any advanced civilizational stages (so effectively they are not sustainable as well because they eventually become overwhelmed by other types of societies).

I like the idea if adding a "rattlesnake" type to these dove and hawk classification  (the idea isn't mine but I don't remember sources  - and google returns some gibberish here..)- a rattlesnake never initiate violence, but always fights back when attacked - becoming a hawk there should be costly enough that society of all rattlesnakes should be both sustainable and able to make quick civilizational advancements.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2013, 04:08:22 AM by Krantz » Logged
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2013, 02:56:09 PM »

While George says directly that he is not a pacifist and that he believes in self-defense, what he implies by everything else he says is quite the opposite.  He stated in an interview debate with Chris Cantwell that he believes people would get tired of committing violence.  If we take this with what he said in the article, something to the effect of that he wont hurt anybody, then we can see that his idea of self-defense is parrying the attackers attack. If he is unwilling to hurt somebody even in defense of his own life, then he IS a pacifist.

I think I see what the issue is...you and I are using different interpretations of "pacifist" according my interpretation, he isn't a pacifist since he is agrees that while he personally would not use violence in any circumstance, if I were to use violence in self-defense it would be legitimate, whereas from my understanding, the fact that he won't use violence himself is all that is necessary to be defined a 'pacifist" even if he believes violence in self-defense is legitimate for him or others to use.

A personal commitment to non-violence is the accepted definition of pacifism, it doesn't require the condemnation of those who's beliefs are different.  I will say, though, that any so-called "pacifist" who will hire their violence done, or allow someone else to do violence directly on their behalf, is just a hypocrite.  Preferring to hire ones violence done by experts is fine, not morally different from me preferring to let the mechanic change my oil rather than doing it myself, but it is not pacifism.

So by your definition of pacifism is self defence moral?

Oddly phrased.  I would say that I believe self defense is moral, but it is not consistent with my definition of pacifism.  

I am reluctant to use violence, it is probably my least favorite way to solve a problem, but I am not a pacifist.  I also do not make a moral distinction between using violence against someone who is doing something I don't like, and calling the cops on them, to come be violent for me.  The moral difference between pulling a trigger vs hiring a hit man is nil, even if the hit man has a badge.

I have an interest in you explaining this further.

Quote
I also do not make a moral distinction between using violence against someone who is doing something I don't like, and calling the cops on them, to come be violent for me.

Especially the part where you say "...doing something I don't like."  So, if somebody is playing music to loudly do you think calling a cop or using violence is appropriate?  What about an open fire?  Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the authority to use force against the perpetrator; whatever
happened to the NAP and non-initiation of force?

Where did you get that I thought using violence against someone with a loud stereo was moral?  I certainly didn't say that.  What I said was that calling the po-po's is using violence.  I never said using violence against something I didn't like was moral.  I said it isn't morally different from hiring someone to do the violence.

Edit: Sorry it took me so long to notice you'd asked me a question.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2013, 02:59:56 PM by SimonJester » Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!