When is political violence justified?

[ShinyCrystals]

No matter what is far too broad a statement.  If someone will literally destroy the world, maybe assassination is due.

Violence is ultimately the source of all power.  And politics is power.  No violence, no politics, in one sense.  One man's terrorist is another freedom fighter and all that.

I guess it's all about the details.  Where the devil lives.

Well, that may be true in a way, especially if it is really an emergency situation, but keep in mind; whether it's "no matter what" or "some of the time", there are many, many ways to solve problems in life. We don't have to resort to violence when there are many ways to get something done. Not saying this in terms of libertarian free will, but those ways do exist. Even if there a situation with a fast response needed to stop something bad from happening, there is always more than one way.

There is a thing called preparation, which we can use in advance should a threat be detected and needs a fast response without violence, so violence does not have to be necessary.

[FrustratedFool]

I can agree that violence should never be a first impulse. But its a tool that has to be kept in the toolbox. And it's probably more useful and necessary than many suppose.

[ShinyCrystals]

I can agree that violence should never be a first impulse.  But its a tool that has to be kept in the toolbox. And it's probably more useful and necessary than many suppose.

Well, it is always an option.It is just not a good option. But there is the thing of "being left with no option" that even the police have to go by, so there is that.

[Anomalocaris]

I can agree that violence should never be a first impulse.  But it’s a tool that has to be kept in the toolbox. And it's probably more useful and necessary than many suppose.

What is meant by “first impulse” is ambigious.

When violence is committed, it is often because the impulse for it has bubbled to the top as other options have been closed off or have been rejected.   The closing off or rejection of other options need not be clearly associated with the crisis at hand,  so in the context of the crisis, the violence seems like the first impulse because it is the only viable impulse available.

[FrustratedFool]

I imagine that all kinds of psychological factors come into play.

I think society likely works better, from a utilitarian perspective, if violence is farther down the list of tactics that people turn to to address political grievances. But its hard to make general rules.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] if violence is farther down the list of tactics that people turn to to address political grievances.

That rather depends on the individual.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When violence is committed, it is often because the impulse for it has bubbled to the top as other options have been closed off or have been rejected.   The closing off or rejection of other options need not be clearly associated with the crisis at hand,  so in the context of the crisis, the violence seems like the first impulse because it is the only viable impulse available.

This.

"Violence is the last resort of fools. BUT it is sometimes the first resort of a reasonable mind."

Zebras make a good case for "black and white". Others realize there's a lot of ground between the poles.

[The Grand Nudger]

Violence is never necessary, though it's often expedient.

There's an interesting angle to this in the case of revolutionaries. They've often been indoctrinated into the status quo - and carry that with them even as they engage in revolutionary acts. You don't hear a big group of rebels put out manifestos about how they had to rebel because it was a tuesday and they wanted an extra juicebar. It's always some flowery bits about a huge grievance. One big enough to overcome..but still seated thoroughly within, their preexisting indoctrination.

People who want to make a better state don't want to destroy their states. Their states are still the focus. Still the sacrosanct object. The severity of their perceived grievance allows them to argue that drastic violence against the state apparatus is expedient, for repairing the state apparatus. It's not necessary, there are other ways to get to that better state. Just not right now, not right quick.

[ShinyCrystals]

Violence is never necessary, though it's often expedient.  

There's an interesting angle to this in the case of revolutionaries.  They've often been indoctrinated into the status quo - and carry that with them even as they engage in revolutionary acts.  You don't hear a big group of rebels put out manifestos about how they had to rebel because it was a tuesday and they wanted an extra juicebar.  It's always some flowery bits about a huge grievance.  One big enough to overcome..but still seated thoroughly within, their preexisting indoctrination.  

People who want to make a better state don't want to destroy their states.  Their states are still the focus.  Still the sacrosanct object.  The severity of their perceived grievance allows them to argue that drastic violence against the state apparatus is expedient, for repairing the state apparatus.  It's not necessary, there are other ways to get to that better state.  Just not right now, not right quick.

Something like that was what I was trying to say. Police and the army only use it because they are qualified to use it, and only when it is necessary, are they not? As for everyone else, not only is violence wrong and qualified, but with many other ways to solve problems, we don't even need violence at all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Violence is never necessary, though it's often expedient.  

LOL. Ever been in a combat zone? Violence comes right after a pulse on the necessary list. Disney characters don't NEED violence but they often use it.