2007-09-16 16:34:05 · 5 answers · asked by a las barricadas 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
As part of militant civil disobedience?
2007-09-16 16:37:18 · update #1
I think a distinction should be made between "violence" and "property destruction": violence is when a person inflicts harm to another person, while property destruction or property damage is not violence, although it can have indirect harm such as financial harm. I think it is important to place this issue within context or else we ignore the cyclical violence of our corporate police state. The dogma of nonviolence ideology means that we must accept the choices of resistance that "they" offer. The whole point of protest is to demand change, not beg for for it.
2007-09-16 17:16:52 · update #2
But how are we to ever bring about change if we can't challenge the status quo? According to that logic, even 'peaceful' demonstrations are illegitimate because they infringe on the rights of others.
2007-09-16 17:24:54 · update #3
The destruction of property is not "clearly" wrong to me. Property is theft.
2007-09-16 17:26:27 · update #4
I am referring to political protest aimed at challenging the corporate state, not people tipping over their neighbours cars. There is a big difference.
2007-09-16 23:53:51 · update #5
Thanks for the comments so far though people.
2007-09-16 23:59:55 · update #6
I guess another question might be: is political violence (however we choose to define violence) ever justified?
2007-09-17 01:30:24 · update #7
Seano: I am not referring to going to someone elses house and taking or destroying their things. I am talking about political protest. I guess getting shot dead by the cops at a protest is ok in your books?
2007-09-17 08:12:51 · update #8
As for the law that brings up another question: is it ever 'ok' to break the law?
2007-09-17 08:14:19 · update #9
People often talk about violence without ever giving a thought to the violence of the state.
2007-09-17 08:15:32 · update #10
Definition of violence
Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
Yes, violence is not always solely directed at a person, or living being.
2007-09-16 16:51:31 · answer #1 · answered by Ravin 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"The destruction of property is not "clearly" wrong to me. Property is theft"
In other words, the problem here is that you're a totalitarianism-fetishizing socialist, and like all socialists you think any act of violence or aggression you impose on anyone else is justified because of your completely skewed, back-***-wards dogma.
2014-06-18 09:09:55 · answer #2 · answered by Cody M 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
destruction of property not belonging to you is clearly wrong.
The first answerer clarifies the definition of violence.
No person has a right to infringe the rights of others in order to get their point across. It betrays their own "cause" as well as the legal or moral ramifications of the act itself.
2007-09-16 17:23:00 · answer #3 · answered by John T 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
violence will be when you get shot by a property owner for destroying his property.
Your refusal to recognize the property of others does not invalidate the law and will subject you to prosecution.
2007-09-17 03:39:16 · answer #4 · answered by Seano 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If someone tears down your fence and tips your car over do you consider that violence? I do.
2007-09-16 18:03:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋