Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member

The Magistrate

(94,320 posts)
64. It Is Clear, Sir, You Have Never Given The Subject Much Thought
Fri Apr 11, 2014, 12:32 AM
Apr 2014

By denouncing a violent response to violent suppression of dissent by police, and maintaining that a violent response to violent suppression of dissent by police is wrong, you are endorsing and supporting police brutality against demonstrators, and setting it up as right and proper action. You may not like this being pointed out, but that is no one's problem but your own: it is what you have done.

You have not even attempted engaging the near universal consensus that people have a right to defend themselves against violence done to their person, and do so in such a manner as will ensure the attack ends. Nor have you engaged that it is only a moral position against all violence, by anyone, which is ever resorted to in claiming use of violence to defend oneself against violent attack is never justified or moral. It is evidently not a standard you could meet, from your commentary on the topic. It is clear yours is, really, a garden variety 'I approve of violence against my enemies and disapprove of violence against my friends' standard.

Part of the muddle which tends to arise when people think of violence and whether it is right or not is a confusion between decisions made on the basis of moral values and decisions made as considerations of strategy or tactics. As people must often be reminded, the fact that one has the right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do in some particular circumstance, judged by considerations of what might succeed or fail, and what the gains or pains might turn out to be. Judgement of this sort might well conclude it is a bad idea to fight back in some situations, but that does not change that people have the right to fight back, or establish that in all situations it is a bad idea to fight back.

When engaged in conflict towards some political end, one reason often given some weight in deciding whether use of violence is a good course or not is whether use of violence will forfeit the proverbial 'moral high ground', and indeed, it can be of use in seeking some end against opposition to give the appearance of being better people than one's opponents. It is a pretty question whether behavior which aligns with a high moral standard, but is performed not from a desire to behave morally but rather from the calculation that it may pay to appear moral, should be considered moral behavior, or something else. It is something definitely worth bearing in mind, however, when considering this subject.

Non-violence, as a strategy, depends for its success not on minimizing violence but rather on seeing to it violence flows in only one direction in the confrontation. Violence remains at its heart, for violence is the ultimate test of sincerity in political matters, and a willingness to see violence done, whether by oneself or upon oneself, is essential to achieving anything. A non-violent protest met with slices of cake and soft drinks rather than tear-gas and clubs or worse, would achieve nothing. Again, it is a pretty question, particularly for people who adopt non-violence from a sincere belief violence is in and of itself wrong, just what are the moral culpabilities when one deliberately courts and provokes violence in others, and indeed depends up the violence of others for success.

Since maintaining a monopoly on use of violence for political ends within its boundaries is one of the distinguishing characteristics of whether a functioning state exists, the question of violence will always arise when people in any number challenge the government of a state. The state will certainly be tempted to demonstrate its monopoly, and of course it is likely to have more resources in that line. But a successful use of violence against agents of the state is, by token of that claimed monopoly, one particularly striking way the legitimacy of the state itself can be called into question. In any confrontation which aims, or comes to aim, at overthrow of a government, there will come a point when violence by the opponents of the state becomes an important means for them to stake their claim it is they, not the government they oppose, which is the legitimate power in that state.

Pretty easy after the USAID twitter thing in Cuba. /nt jakeXT Apr 2014 #1
I love all these ProSense Apr 2014 #5
National Endowment For Democracy is a US govt-funded front org cprise Apr 2014 #2
I Doubt You Can Back That Figure Up, Sir The Magistrate Apr 2014 #3
Yes, Nuland is the source, though I mispoke re NED being 'the' instrument cprise Apr 2014 #4
Yes, Sir, You Mis-Spoke, To A Degree Which Calls Into Question If You Understand The Basics Here The Magistrate Apr 2014 #10
He doth protest too much cprise Apr 2014 #17
I Describe, Sir, Not Protest The Magistrate Apr 2014 #18
Lets talk dates... cprise Apr 2014 #29
Riot Police Initiated Violence On 30 November, Sir The Magistrate Apr 2014 #41
You are full of it. Beatup protesters is not cause for Regime Change. cprise Apr 2014 #43
Wait ProSense Apr 2014 #44
'Unsubstantiated claims' - sure cprise Apr 2014 #47
No, ProSense Apr 2014 #48
Flat denial with no mitigating facts. cprise Apr 2014 #50
All you've done is repeat: Leave Russia alone. n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #52
I'm saying your intepretation is based on the Cold Warrior drumbeat. n/t cprise Apr 2014 #53
Nonsense. You're searching for justification for your Russian apologia. n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #54
Your draconian take on the finance law fell apart, then changed the subject. n/t cprise Apr 2014 #57
Look at this thread: You started out with a bogus defense of legalized persecution ProSense Apr 2014 #58
You didn't like that reminder about US-backed NGOs I see. n/t cprise Apr 2014 #59
This Is Nonesense, Sir The Magistrate Apr 2014 #60
Rioters initiated lethal violence-Dec. 2 cprise Apr 2014 #61
That, Sir, Was Priceless The Magistrate Apr 2014 #62
So condemning lethal force in response to beatings is 'support of police brutality'. cprise Apr 2014 #63
It Is Clear, Sir, You Have Never Given The Subject Much Thought The Magistrate Apr 2014 #64
So violence=violence, regardless of what kind. cprise Apr 2014 #65
Your Sputtering Is Noted, Sir The Magistrate Apr 2014 #66
What does that have to do with Russia and the HRW report? n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #6
HRW is arguing a Libertarian Globalist view of NGO finance. cprise Apr 2014 #8
Again, ProSense Apr 2014 #9
I don't deny the anti-gay mindset there cprise Apr 2014 #45
See, ProSense Apr 2014 #46
Get back to me on Saudi Arabia, India, UAE, etc. sometime. cprise Apr 2014 #49
So you ProSense Apr 2014 #51
The rhetoric has descended to baby babble now cprise Apr 2014 #55
Right... ProSense Apr 2014 #56
Yes, we need is a similar law in the U.S. ProSense Apr 2014 #7
Also pine for the bankers who would be "rounded up" if Glass-Steagal cprise Apr 2014 #11
The fact is that Russian law impede human rights. ProSense Apr 2014 #13
Falling back on stale rhetoric? cprise Apr 2014 #19
"No doubt Russian laws 'impede' human rights ProSense Apr 2014 #20
That one line tautology cprise Apr 2014 #23
Says the person ProSense Apr 2014 #24
You can imagine that and bet it is happening treestar Apr 2014 #15
Does the US allow foreign governments to foment unrest in malaise Apr 2014 #12
Well, ProSense Apr 2014 #14
Yes, but its still possible to finance advocates in Russia cprise Apr 2014 #21
Ridiculous. ProSense Apr 2014 #22
Disclosure isn't persecution. Too bad for your 3rd Way bankers. n/t cprise Apr 2014 #25
You know damn well this isn't about "disclosure." n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #26
Yeah, it means increased skepticism. Again... too bad! cprise Apr 2014 #27
No, it means legalized persecution. ProSense Apr 2014 #28
How enlightening. n/t cprise Apr 2014 #30
Yes. treestar Apr 2014 #16
An undefeated bully wanders into the woods nilesobek Apr 2014 #31
Isn't that ProSense Apr 2014 #32
Isn't Palin a neo-con that makes nilesobek Apr 2014 #33
"Isn't Palin a neo-con that makes crazy and inaccurate alarmist statements about Russia?" ProSense Apr 2014 #34
Just seems like mockery, but do carry on. nilesobek Apr 2014 #35
No, just correlating bravado and inaccuracies. n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #36
I'm ok with any kind of constructive criticism. nilesobek Apr 2014 #37
Well, that ProSense Apr 2014 #38
And the jury results are in... aikoaiko Apr 2014 #42
You spliced two stories together nilesobek Apr 2014 #39
That makes four ridiculous comments. n/t ProSense Apr 2014 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Russia: Constitutional Co...»Reply #64