[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Raynt

Hey I was wondering peoples thoughts on when, if ever violence is acceptable. Now I know that sounds pretty bad, but please hear me out. I do believe it should only be used as a last resort and in a desperate situation. The only two situations that seem to have the potential to qualify for this to me are self- defense and defense of others.

What about the defense of property? People shouldn't be taking things from others; if they do, they get punished.

Now the first is more clear- cut, so I will start with that. Suppose someone breaks into your house and you are left with no means of escape and they charge at you with a knife. Is it not acceptable to defend yourself in whatever means is necessary, even if it may cause significant bodily harm or death to the attacker if you see no alternative?

Why does it matter if you can escape or not. It's your home, your property, your right to defend yourself because you are being violated by an intruder. You should have the right to kill them even if they aren't armed. They shouldn't be breaking into your house in the first place. If we wait around to see what they're intentions are we're putting ourselves in danger. The courts agree with me here by the way in most states.

The second has been brought up before by Steve in his article about resolving conflict in the Middle East http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...bal-conflicts/. In it he argues that any sort of military intervention isn't the answer since it will just cause the conflict to continue to repeat itself through the cycle of revenge and counter- attack. He advises that the answer is a team to go and raise the level of consciousness of the leaders in the region so that the leaders could see that violence wasn't the answer. Yet, even he admits that this solution isn't viable today.

The solution isn't viable because the leaders are not persuadable. You can't talk to people who have been raised to think that killing you for no reason is their goal in life. Your only option is to kill them. It's sad, but it's reality.

Now I'm going to jump to another hypothetical situation with clear- cut victims (I was going to use Darfur, but I stumbled on some very good reasons why the international community has been treading lightly around the issue). Suppose there is a region where the government is attempting to kill off minority ethnic groups and this is resulting in mass killings. Suppose further that the leader of the country is either insane or a person who holds absolutely no scruples against murder. Raising his consciousness would be next to impossible for anyone less than a person with an inhuman level of consciousness and in today's world I don't think we have anyone who quite fits that bill. So that leaves some sort of pressure or incentives to have his government stop the killings. For whatever reason this fails, maybe we have nothing he cares about one way or another or maybe his hatred of the groups he is targeting surpasses any sort of pressure we can bring to bear through this manner. I see no real options that would remain other than military intervention or waiting and watching while the people are wiped out. True, neither is a good option, but which is the lesser of two evils?

It isn't about the lesser of two evils, it's about doing what is right. The right thing to do is to protect the people he is murdering. If military action is the best possible way to do that, military action should be used, period. There is no reason these irresponsible leaders should be allowed complete control of a country and that country's military. I am in favor of the U.S. assassinating half these dictators--their people didn't vote for them (or were forced to vote for them or face death) and the people are dying by the millions under their rule. Nobody deserves that.

Good post.