On Violence

[John 6IX Breezy]

This is utter nonsense and shows an ignorance of the historical record. Violence, properly executed and controlled, is a phenomenally effective means of achieving power, and there's nothing 'impoverished' about it.' The claim that true power can only come from social consent is likewise misinformed - why is power so derived more true than power achieved via violent methods?

The basis for this claim comes from the long-standing idea in political philosophy, which culminated in the famous line from the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their power from the consent of the government. (The idea is built on millenia of history and philosophy which led to the current world, so I'll let the idea stand on it's own for now.)

[John 6IX Breezy]

I don't see point two sorry, is there any indication humans are moving away from violence as a means to achieve what they want? If so I must have missed this, just watch the news for a few days. 

Yes, the data has been argued to show that human history has had two major trends: First, that the further back you go humanity becomes increasingly and unrecognizable violent, second, that the further up you go humanity becomes increasingly more progressive. And so, a good example of the two would be to contrast the Dark Ages with the Enlightened.

[John 6IX Breezy]

"Above the line" just means that it makes the news, or people are aware of it and shake their heads about how it's something bad. "Below the line" is more like structural violence -- the stuff that our society needs to keep running, so we all just sort of ignore it. If we're aware of it at all. 

That's a great metaphor, and one I certainly will agree with. To describe progress and violence people must first become aware of both. Another way to frame it is that future generations will look back at us and perhaps see us as primal as we see societies from a few centuries ago. And yet, we ourselves do not see it because the progress we lack is below the line and hasn't gained sailence.

[Paleophyte]

Hello, I hope everyone is doing well—it's been a while. Here are a few disorganized thoughts I've had this week, based on current healthcare events:

1. Violence is an impoverished conception of power. That's because true power can only come from social consent, and to achieve consent you must communicate, negotiate, and persuade others—not coerce them. Violence is thus the absence of strategy; and without strategy you will always have the illusion of change but never the certainty of progress.

2. As such, violence and progress do not, and cannot, coexist. They are inverse measures of each other, such that you can predict the state of one by observing the state of the other. Nor can progress rationally precipitate from violence, because you cannot lend yourself to wrong you condemn and hope to move beyond the place where you started.

3. Finally, my conclusion is that no matter how justified violence may be in a given situation, IF a nonviolent alterative exists the nonviolent one will always outperform the violent one.

A couple of problems with this:

(1) It assumes that violence and power, consent and coercion are mutually exclusive. Sadly, our history demonstrates that it's possible to have both. In-group power and consent producing out-group coercion and violence is a pretty common theme in our tribalistic little species.

(2) It assumes that progress is dependent on this single metric when the broad social patterns are complex and thorny messes. I don't think that it's going to be quite this reductible.

I suspect that violence is more of a symptom that something is going badly and unthinkingly wrong. The knee-jerk reaction of a frightened and angry beast.

[brewer]

I'm pretty sure my steak would taste like shit if I let the cow die by natural means.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is utter nonsense and shows an ignorance of the historical record. Violence, properly executed and controlled, is a phenomenally effective means of achieving power, and there's nothing 'impoverished' about it.' The claim that true power can only come from social consent is likewise misinformed - why is power so derived more true than power achieved via violent methods?

The basis for this claim comes from the long-standing idea in political philosophy, which culminated in the famous line from the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their power from the consent of the government. (The idea is built on millenia of history and philosophy which led to the current world, so I'll let the idea stand on it's own for now.)

(Bold mine)

That’s a misquote. Your Declaration states ‘…derive their just power from the consent of the governed.’   I don’t have an issue with that - power derived without such consent (by violent means, for example) may be unjust, but it’s no less real or true than power derived by other means, and is quite obviously capable of producing progress. It’s also interesting to note that the Declaration made no bones about the colonials intention to gain power via violence.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't see point two sorry, is there any indication humans are moving away from violence as a means to achieve what they want? If so I must have missed this, just watch the news for a few days. 

Yes, the data has been argued to show that human history has had two major trends: First, that the further back you go humanity becomes increasingly and unrecognizable violent, second, that the further up you go humanity becomes increasingly more progressive. And so, a good example of the two would be to contrast the Dark Ages with the Enlightened.

Sorry, but that’s not the case at all. Without scratching my brain, I can think of at least five major wars that occurred during the Enlightenment (including your own Revolution).

Boru

[TheWhiteMarten]

Violence is a tool like any other; how we use it determines it's effectiveness and what goals we desire it's efficiency.

The misuse of a tool only says something about the craftsman.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maga certainly believes that progress lay through violence. From their assault on the capital to their mad plan to deport all the browns to their heartfelt desire to weaponize the government against the libs. Violence from the bottom up. The worry is not that this could not work, that they couldn't achieve their dream of a single party theocratic ethnostate by these means. It's that we know they can. We've seen this movie before.

[Angrboda]

"As a formalist, I define power as the ability to change the rules, or to clarify them when no rules exist. In a mature, sclerotic megastate like the US, it can be very hard to see where the power is, because (by historical standards) there is almost no change in the US."

— Mencius Moldbug