When should a country consider deadly force against it's citizens?


talisyn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hmmm... But corruption still exists when legitimate businessmen engage in legitimate business...

When was the last street war fought between employees of Coke and Pepsi with AKs? I've never heard of Miller beer distributors shooting it out with the police and killing several. There is quite a difference between corruption in a major corporation and the drug wars going on in Mexico and the southern states.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be careful to vehemently express something as an absolute. Only the Sith deals in absolutes...

I should explain the point-of-reference I'm coming from, I'm talking of the ideal. In other words, what we should as a sane society hope/aim for.

Ofcourse, we have admissions that there are shortcomings and that these things "do happen." Yet at the same time, we work towards personally and socially eliminating the propensity for the conscious killing of other human beings as far as we possibly can at the time.

This "ideal" is much the same as self-improvement. We are always trying to perfect ourselves in our essay writing, in our understanding of a text, in our methods of relating to this with different opinions, etc,. Yet, at the same time we realise that in all things we will never reach a point of absolution where we cannot improve any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, idealistic discussions can be pretty polarizing. I'm glad you explained where you're coming from.

The problem is that tricky word "if". Yeah, the world would be a better place IF people would abandon violence and work together as brothers and sisters to solve their problems. But from where I'm standing, humanity's nature places that "if" out of reality. It will take an act of God to change the way reality works. We're told one is coming (the millenium), and if I live to see it, I sure wouldn't complain, but I'm living in the real world here.

And in the real world, a "sane society" understands that the world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Geopolitics is a business where "do to them or they will do to you" rules the day. The more leverage you have over the next society on the map, the more concessions you can force at the bargaining table. The game has always been played - you've got what we want, so we're going to find a way to take it, and you're going to try and stop us. Maybe it involves violence, maybe just the threat of violence, but violence is always in the equasion somewhere. The OP of this thread asks us to consider when a nation's citizens become "them" and violent means become the only response.

On a smaller level, a "sane society" understands that there will always be bad people in the world who will never play by the rules. For whatever reason, be it a bad upbringing or a broken culture or a mental illness or just a plain choice to work evil, there'll be people we need to stop with the application of deadly force. I'm willilng to work with you on how to help societies provide good upbringings, fix the culture, detect and treat the mental illnesses, and find ways to persuade people to choose good. But until we solve those problems, I want good cops, and I want an army following a just consitution, and I want the freedom to defend myself.

On the smallest level, the "sane society" of the family includes people who protect innocents within their stewardship. My wife and I helped put a felon behind bars for 5-life, and his parole hearing is in less than a year. It's a very real possibility that when he gets out, he'll want some payback. We live out of the city, where a cop would take 15 minutes to get to our house with siren on and foot to the floor. So my wife and I have handguns and conceal-carry permits, and we practice our skills and our mindset, so if he shows up, we can stop him from harming us or our kids.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you on so many levels, based on experimental psychology alone, but I'm not going to turn this thread into a debate over that.

You are welcome to hold that the human being is fundamentally unchangeable as to the "way things are", but it is very wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you on so many levels, based on experimental psychology alone, but I'm not going to turn this thread into a debate over that.

You are welcome to hold that the human being is fundamentally unchangeable as to the "way things are", but it is very wrong.

Aesa, the problem I see is that you are lightyears ahead of everybody. We haven't caught up to you yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aesa, the problem I see is that you are lightyears ahead of everybody. We haven't caught up to you yet...

Not at all. I'm just not a position of having enough time to get into a drawn out discussion about the human being, and how much a product learning we are, etc, etc,.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share