Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Violence is Golden By Jack Donovan

  1. #1
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317

    Violence is Golden By Jack Donovan

    A lot of people like to think they are “non-violent.” Generally, people claim to “abhor” the use of violence, and violence is viewed negatively by most folks. Many fail to differentiate between just and unjust violence. Some especially vain, self-righteous types -- teenagers, university professors, hippies and the Dalai Lama among them -- like to think they have risen above the nasty, violent cultures of their ancestors. They say that “violence isn’t the answer.” They say that “violence doesn’t solve anything.”

    They’re wrong. Every one of them relies on violence, every single day.

    On election day, people from all walks of life line up to cast their ballots, and by doing so, they hope to influence who gets to wield the axe of authority. Those who want to end violence -- as if that were possible or even desirable -- often seek to disarm their fellow citizens. This does not actually end violence. It merely gives the state mob a monopoly on violence. This makes you “safer,” so long as you don’t piss off the boss.

    All governments -- left, right or other -- are by their very nature coercive. They have to be.

    Order demands violence.

    A rule not ultimately backed by the threat of violence is merely a suggestion. States rely on laws enforced by men ready to do violence against lawbreakers. Every tax, every code and every licensing requirement demands an escalating progression of penalties that, in the end, must result in the forcible seizure of property or imprisonment by armed men prepared to do violence in the event of resistance or non--compliance. Every time a soccer mom stands up and demands harsher penalties for drunk driving, or selling cigarettes to minors, or owning a pit bull, or not recycling, she is petitioning the state to use force to impose her will. She is no longer asking nicely. The viability of every family law, gun law, zoning law, traffic law, immigration law, import law, export law and financial regulation depends on both the willingness and wherewithal of the group to exact order by force.
    Full Article

    I thought it was a pretty good read......thoughts?
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    He is dead on. However, I can't imagine anyone here arguing with his point. We all carry an instrument of deadly violence regularly, almost all of us for the purpose of using it justly when required.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    I agree. Most of us are capable of violence; the difference between gun owners and the antis is gun owners admit it while the antis are in denial. I am a peaceful person but if my life were threatened or another innocent's life were threatened, I would not hesitate to use violence to ensure survival. I think that's probably true for most of the people on this forum. Carrying a deadly weapon with intent to use it if necessary to protect life is clearly a statement of willingness to use violence. Maybe that's one reason the antis hate us so much; we admit it and they can't or won't.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    I agree. Most of us are capable of violence; the difference between gun owners and the antis is gun owners admit it while the antis are in denial.
    I tend to disagree.

    Although I think there are some "anti's" who are capable of violence in a self-defense situation (I know a few), I think the VAST majority of the non-activist anti's are in fact NOT capable of violence. They have been so effectively brainwashed, drugged, and even selectively bred to produce an entire generation of helpless drones who lack the self-preservation instinct, and are not only incapable of defensing themselves by using violence, but actually consider it to be somehow NOBLE to be a "victim"...

    There are exceptions. But I think the majority of the "regular people" out there who are "anti's" are, in fact, slave-sheeple who are psychologically and instintually incapable of defending themselves.

    It is, perhaps, the most dangerous example of counter-productive social evolution we've seen in the history of mankind.

    The instinct for self-preservation is the ONLY thing standing between Liberty and TOTAL, abject slavery. We need to preserve that instinct.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    He is dead on. However, I can't imagine anyone here arguing with his point. We all carry an instrument of deadly violence regularly, almost all of us for the purpose of using it justly when required.
    Agreed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    60

    Not gold standard, steel standard.

    I disagree with the claim that the Dalai Lama relies on the system of violence. To the best of my knowledge, he doesn't rely on a government to implement his suggestions, or ask for governments to enforce any laws.

    The rest, however, are hypocrites. I knew a guy who claimed he was radically non-violent, and couldn't condone violence for any purpose. One night someone vandalized the wall outside his bedroom, and he threatened to call the police. I reminded him that calling the police is subcontracting out the violence to the government, and he reluctantly agreed, though I could tell he would do it again.

    Another friend, however, was truly non-violent to the point that he allowed himself to be beaten rather than fight back against a mugger. That's commendable, in a way, kind of like how it's commendable to spend years building a model out of match sticks.

    I'd also say that not all laws need to be enforced with violence. It's easy enough to impose barriers, or remove privileges, in response to a violation or potential violation of a law. Take The Boot for example. If you don't comply with the law, it doesn't usually require violence for an official to install The Boot on your car. That would provide some incentive to follow the law. Admittedly, it would be a fairly weak legal system which relied solely on these sorts of passive-aggressive measures without the threat of force at some point.

    Far from being the gold standard, I'd say violence is the lowest common denominator. "Civilization" is the concept that we can choose to cooperate without the actual use of violence. Society depends on the readiness to use violence, but is hindered by the actual use. As such, violence should be the last resort, not the first. That's also an equally important concept to remember, especially for those of us who retain our readiness to use violence should it prove necessary.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    Its the people that subcontract out the violence that scare me. These are the people who think they are better than everyone else....the kind who are always right(the kind whose children could never do wrong). The ones who firmly believe only certain people should carry guns. basically, the general population. I think violence and fear are two of the biggest drivers in today's society. The goal is peace, but the methods used to attain such a state of being are not pretty. while it may be the last resort(violence), it is also the most important one; without it one would merely be bluffing.

    or else what has to lead the person to believe they must oblige or face said violence(sooner or later)
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    He is dead on. However, I can't imagine anyone here arguing with his point. We all carry an instrument of deadly violence regularly, almost all of us for the purpose of using it justly when required.

    I know I won't. I have direct knowledge of my capabilities in that area. Fortunately it has not been necessary to cause any significant damage as yet.

    My wife claims that my "civilization" is only a very thin veneer. I tend to agree.


    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    I agree. Most of us are capable of violence; the difference between gun owners and the antis is gun owners admit it while the antis are in denial. I am a peaceful person but if my life were threatened or another innocent's life were threatened, I would not hesitate to use violence to ensure survival. I think that's probably true for most of the people on this forum. Carrying a deadly weapon with intent to use it if necessary to protect life is clearly a statement of willingness to use violence. Maybe that's one reason the antis hate us so much; we admit it and they can't or won't.

    As I see it, the major difference between us and the antis is that we're ready to do violence ourselves. The antis, on the other hand, wait until something happens, then call the people with the guns to do violence on their behalf. They shirk personal responsibility on a very important issue.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I tend to disagree.

    Although I think there are some "anti's" who are capable of violence in a self-defense situation (I know a few), I think the VAST majority of the non-activist anti's are in fact NOT capable of violence. They have been so effectively brainwashed, drugged, and even selectively bred to produce an entire generation of helpless drones who lack the self-preservation instinct, and are not only incapable of defensing themselves by using violence, but actually consider it to be somehow NOBLE to be a "victim"...

    There are exceptions. But I think the majority of the "regular people" out there who are "anti's" are, in fact, slave-sheeple who are psychologically and instintually incapable of defending themselves.

    It is, perhaps, the most dangerous example of counter-productive social evolution we've seen in the history of mankind.

    The instinct for self-preservation is the ONLY thing standing between Liberty and TOTAL, abject slavery. We need to preserve that instinct.
    I must respectfully disagree with you on this one. While there are no doubt some people out there who claim they would never resort to a violent act even in defense of themselves or a family member, very few would actually do this. Yes a few would have the courage of their convictions, but since it is nearly impossible to prove any statistical data one way or the other, we would just have to see the results of their convictions and then clean up the mess.

    I used to work with a man many years ago who received his undergraduate from the University of California at Berkeley. He was the first individual who told me that there were people of this mindset out there and he said that a few of them were so deeply ingrained with these beliefs that they would probably allow someone to rape and murder their daughter in front of them and do nothing because, "Oh well, that's their karma". This was in 1966 when that part of San Francisco had become the mecca of radical lunatics.

    So there are no doubt a few, a rather small subset, of nutcases who might refuse to lift a finger in their defense, or that of a loved one, I would bet a month's income, those numbers are small when these people are faced with their imminent demise like right now.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    There is bad violence and there is good violence (one could say "necessary violence" if they preferred - same thing because if it works, the results are good). The good violence is a gift from God.. the bad sort is a product of human depravity. One might say, "How on earth can any violence be good and how could you possible make a claim that it is a gift from God?". The types that might ask this question are probably the same types who would ask, "Why do you think you need to carry a gun?".

    Good violence IS a God-given gift. It is generally referred to as the instinct of self-preservation. Most all creatures in the animal kingdom have this instinct to some degree. And we certainly do as well. Now some might say, "Well self-preservation isn't really the same thing as violense". Oh really. So I suppose taking a fight to your attacker is the same thing as sending him Christmas cards???

    There is bad violence and there is good violence. The problem with the anti-violence types is that they refuse to see or acknowledge this basic fact. To them ALL violence is bad. And for the small number of extreme members of their tribe, even violence used in self-defense is not only bad, but a must to avoid. I don't feel one bit sorry for people like this. Not even when they are attacked and refuse to defend themselves. Not only do I not feel sorry for them, I have zero respect for them as well.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 12-02-2010 at 07:15 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    That is why the founders wrote the 2A into place, it is a constant threat of violence against our government in hope that they would not overreach their constitutional restrictions ( Long since past ). Yet people have been led astray into the belief that sacrificing liberty will provide safety.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yet people have been led astray into the belief that sacrificing liberty will provide safety.
    Many, yes. Fortunately, not all.

    The difference between good violence and bad violence is intent. However, "the greatest good" isn't the appropriate litmus test, as that's often been used to deprive the general public of their individual rights for the "greater common good," without realizing that the greater common good is often best served by empowering the people, not depriving them.
    Last edited by since9; 12-06-2010 at 03:42 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    When we refer to Ben's quote, we should include the two adjectives that he carefully chose to modify the key nouns: essential and temporary. They are well-worth some cogitation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •