The Fundamental Political Question

[commonsense]

BTW a fight is finished when one side surrenders. That means you can end a fight without ending the life of an opponent.

The problem is, those who believe fighting and force are the right way to settle things are usually vindictive as well. If you are fighting because every other avenue of defense has been blocked, you haven't really won unless the one threatening you is made unable to seek revenge.

I would never use force except as a last resort, but when I do, it's total. It's only ever come to that once in my life, long ago in Southeast Asia. It was in a war zone, but the experience was as a civilian. I blame myself for being where such a situation could occur, but not for what I did. I now have a better strategy of defense. The first rule is, "don't be there when it happens."

I would never initiate force against anyone else, but anyone who threatens me with force, which I have no option to avoid, has declared that they are unworthy of human consideration and will receive none, which usually means they have chosen to die rather than cease threatening. I'm only giving them what they have choosen.

Sounds like you might have more to say, but I won’t pry. It seems like you have a grasp on the use of force.

[RCSaunders]

I reject all use of force except in defense against force, and in most cases there are better (safer and more economical) methods of defense.

I agree that the use of force other than for defense is unethical. I have only been pointing out that when one party needs to defend itself, some other party is the aggressor. As a practical matter, this is realistic. If I stated that I think it is morally right to be the aggressor, I erred. If the aggressor can make a credible threat, he may be able to inflict his will on his opponent without actually employing force. I offer my comments not as a promoter of force, but as a sad observer of what makes diplomacy work.

Well I agree with all of that, of course, except the part about diplomacy, which may not be a disagreement, but a misunderstanding.

When would diplomacy ever be necessary if none of the parties involved are deemed possible threats? Normal negotiations, even where there is strong disagreement, do not really required diplomacy, requiring a back-up of force do they? Diplomats are usually employed by agencies of force, like mobsters and governments, to evade actual physical aggression or other threats. Businesses may talk about being, "diplomatic," in their negotiations, (meaning not intentionally offending anyone), but there is never any danger of real physical threat.

Besides, diplomacy doesn't work. It is always a compromise between those threatening force and those attempting to avoid it, which always means surrendering something without resistance to the aggressor for a temporary respite, and only pertains to collectives. Individuals never have to compromise their values. So long as one never threatens force against anyone else and only deals with others rationally, offering value for value to everyone's mutual agreement or benefit, every threat may be dealt with directly and justly, evaded or terminated.

[commonsense]

I reject all use of force except in defense against force, and in most cases there are better (safer and more economical) methods of defense.

I agree that the use of force other than for defense is unethical. I have only been pointing out that when one party needs to defend itself, some other party is the aggressor. As a practical matter, this is realistic. If I stated that I think it is morally right to be the aggressor, I erred. If the aggressor can make a credible threat, he may be able to inflict his will on his opponent without actually employing force. I offer my comments not as a promoter of force, but as a sad observer of what makes diplomacy work.

Well I agree with all of that, of course, except the part about diplomacy, which may not be a disagreement, but a misunderstanding.

When would diplomacy ever be necessary if none of the parties involved are deemed possible threats? Normal negotiations, even where there is strong disagreement, do not really required diplomacy, requiring a back-up of force do they? Diplomats are usually employed by agencies of force, like mobsters and governments, to evade actual physical aggression or other threats. Businesses may talk about being, "diplomatic," in their negotiations, (meaning not intentionally offending anyone), but there is never any danger of real physical threat.

Besides, diplomacy doesn't work. It is always a compromise between those threatening force and those attempting to avoid it, which always means surrendering something without resistance to the aggressor for a temporary respite, and only pertains to collectives. Individuals never have to compromise their values. So long as one never threatens force against anyone else and only deals with other rationally, offering value for value to eveyone's mutual agreement or benefit, every threat may be dealt with directly and justly, evaded or teminated.

Agree.

[RCSaunders]

BTW a fight is finished when one side surrenders. That means you can end a fight without ending the life of an opponent.

The problem is, those who believe fighting and force are the right way to settle things are usually vindictive as well. If you are fighting because every other avenue of defense has been blocked, you haven't really won unless the one threatening you is made unable to seek revenge.

I would never use force except as a last resort, but when I do, it's total. It's only ever come to that once in my life, long ago in Southeast Asia. It was in a war zone, but the experience was as a civilian. I blame myself for being where such a situation could occur, but not for what I did. I now have a better strategy of defense. The first rule is, "don't be there when it happens."

I would never initiate force against anyone else, but anyone who threatens me with force, which I have no option to avoid, has declared that they are unworthy of human consideration and will receive none, which usually means they have chosen to die rather than cease threatening. I'm only giving them what they have choosen.

Sounds like you might have more to say, but I won’t pry. It seems like you have a grasp on the use of force.

Not really. I have a grasp on evading the necessity of using force and would prefer to never have to. At my age, it is very unlikely that will happen, but I still carry, and my wife and I go to the range a couple of times a year.

"Don't ever threaten an old guy. He's knows he can't fight, he'll just shoot you."

[henry quirk]

and some who can fight will still shoot you (why get my hands dirty?)

[Scott Mayers]

We cannot live without 'force'. The difference in politics on the 'force' question by different political ideals revolves foremost around whether one believes the majority viewpoint should rule versus a privileged one, ...usually based upon inheritance of some form, whether recognized or not.

That's exactly what I said. Every political ideology assumes, as you do, that the use of force can ever right or is inevitable, that someone is going have to be forced to live as someone else decides they ought to which reduces politics to nothing more than arguments about who should get to force their will on others and who will be repressed. It is that false premise that force is right, and worse, inevitable, that explains why there is perpetual war, oppression, and social upheaval in the world and until that premise if resolved political horrors will only continue to become worse.

Sorry if I repeated something you already brought up. I'm not always able to read all posts to determine this before I post.

On whether force itself is 'right' or 'wrong' regarding politics is often relative to different perspectives. "Force" doesn't always imply the obvious punch-in-the-face type of behavior. A sound logical argument can be a 'force' too. It might require the further 'force' one has for getting a mere platform to speak. In general though, politics cannot operate without representing a 'force' itself. What do laws mean if you cannot enforce them in some way, right?

[jayjacobus]

There is no question about politics.

In principle, power is not the issue but in practice power is the only issue.

[gaffo]

In order for diplomacy to work, there must be the possibility of the use of force as a final resort.

uttelly hogwash!!!!


its the OPPOSITE!


1862, 1942, 1916 - when the balance of power is 50/50, 40/60, 60/40 - there is room to negociate. which is another word for compromize.

by the time its 10/90, 20/80, or even 30/70, there is no need to negociate, just concoure.


------look to history, and you know what you say above is utterly wrong.

......OK I'm going to make an exception here - due to history i know and so respect - but will say they did not need to negociate in order to win, they would have won eventually, but negoitated for their own ends - playing to the ego (Nixon in the instance) - and signing the Paris Peace Accords was a sham of course, and served most sides, North Vietnam ("we only want peace"), Nixon (thanks for signing, so i can be re-elected), not so much the South Veit, who know their time as limited and were sold out (sold out sort of - but they never fought worth a damn and had nothing to back via force - so went along with it to buy time....buy hope.....the last straw).


And so to ammend my above post a little, if all know the "party is over" and most of the parties are willing to go through a sham "negociation" in order to save face/s - that option is easier than collecting an army to make the same outcome


-- refer to the 38 Cheq "peace accords" for another reference

its all about cost benefit analiysis.

Is the policy of MAD about cost/benefit? Really, tell me what you think.

MAD - I LOVE IT BTW - its utterly HORRIFIC - and why it works! and we have not had ww3 in the last 80 yrs (yet) - for there is no cost benfit on that "Game". so no MAD is not about Cost Benefit and why it works - so far.

and why since ww2 all the wars we have had were limited.

Amen for MAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---- now mistake do and will happen, and why i do love Fail Safe (top 10 of all movies of all time) - so WW3 could - even today (Russia still has her 1000+ nukes, and now China and even India and Pakistan too today(Pakis - Indians have their nukes targeted to each other - not to America/Europe to clarify)) - so ya mistake could happen and start WW3 (and why for a longterm garantee for peace via MAD - longterm for the next 2 centuries, so not the best solution.

but for the time being (untli we rid nukes - but the trend is going in the oppostie direction, regional states will (and they will - the wise ones in the 80's ended their programs - South Africa had the bomd and tested it in 1982? Brazil was 2/3 of the way at the time and then got wise and though - "why have the bomb we can never use outside of MAD and so be made a target (I doubt China/Russia have any of thier nukes aimed toward SA/Brazil today (and why in the event of ww3 only the northern hemisphere would be removed of life and from history for a few centuries - and why in the event of ww3 you would be fine if you happened to be in the lower 1/2 of the Earth).

there will be dumb States - and eventually Iran and Saudi Arabia (those two are like the idiots of India vs Pakistan (and why those two latter States have the bomb since 1970/80 respectively.

so ya - though SA and Brazil were wise States 40 yrs ago, the tech needed to "get the bomb" is not high, and so there will be less wise regional states - including Iran and Saudi Arabia in reply that will get it.

fool them, for MAD will still apply, and so they will never be able to use them, but having them their opponent will be forced to target their bombs toward their enemy.

and so by 2100 we will probably have 20 Nuclear States (mostly regional) with bombs they can never use, but targeted because they have them - and so .................


MAD WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!! (so the idea of Iran having the bomb does not worry me in and of itself - IMO they will eventually, and so in reply Saudis will too). bot nations are populated by rational beings that do not welcome anialation. and so MAD works!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amen.

except for "mistakes" - where when we had 2 powers it was too high but not so high to allow WW3 in our lifetimes.

but with 10 nations with bomb the timeline of mistake is shortened by 10 times, and so i only hope MAD will still "work" in the face of "murphys law" in such a 2100 world.

we will see - I'll be dead by then - but others shall see.

thanks for reply.

[gaffo]

1862, 1942, 1916 - when the balance of power is 50/50, 40/60, 60/40 - there is room to negociate. which is another word for compromize.

by the time its 10/90, 20/80, or even 30/70, there is no need to negociate, just concoure.

Why do you need to negotiate with somebody who never initiates force? You can just ignore them.

Non-forceful people don't have any power. Their balance is 0.

exactly!

as i said.

Conferacy had cards to negociate in 1862 - not 64.


same with Germany in 41/2 vs 44.

and Veitnam in 69/70 - not NOT 73 (though as i stated the NV negotiated then for it was to their benfit - no need to reject, just instead affirm the Treaty of Paris, the violate it 3 yrs later knowing American had had enough of the war, and not life lost from the NVA soldiers, buy siging the treaty and building up over the next 2 yrs to ensure a quick vicory with minimal life lost.

so context is also a key, so ya NV did not have to negociate (though the b-52s (xmas bombings) did pressure them to "play along" - it served their ultimate aims knowing America was "over the war" and lost the will to defend SV.

so ya most times there is no need to negociate when one side has all the cards, but sometimes it is of value to go through the sham of sucure the same ends. and i commend the NV for going though said sham. it cost them nothing, and in fact served them well.


i still wonder why the SV never seemed to be able to get her shit together in that war. all competency was from the north, and none in the south.

oh well.

[gaffo]

I would only, "fight," if it were a last resort, in which case there is no limit to what is right.

not so, there is a limit your response to an offense, when you have the perp subdued via whatever -say you shot the 14 yr old thug in the head, and so he is on the floor and no longer a threat, via nature law self defense you no longer have the right to shoot him 5 more times.

which was what happened here in Ok 8 yrs ago. and why he is still in jail and the 14 yrs old is dead.

-----------

if the former vet marine had shot him once in the head- as he did, and so was lying on on the floor and so so not longer a threat - and the kid might have lived (no clue on that, but one bullet to the head instead of 5 more improved that chance - not read the coroners report (not relivent actually - 1st bullet was legal per NL/self defence - not the other 5 - which the vet took the time/turned his back (so knew the kid was incapacited and so no threat) - he walked to the back room, and reloaded his gun and shot the kid 5 more times.

-

charged with murder and rotting in a jail because of it.

and GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fine with the first bullet, not the rest though.

so let the fucker rot!

[gaffo]

in my scheme: the militia exists solely to counter the other three (much as it's supposed today only overtly, unambiguously)

???

whom are the other three?

just curious.

[gaffo]

Is the policy of MAD about cost/benefit? Really, tell me what you think.

Just curious. What is, "MAD?"

Mutually Assured Destruction (how old are you? curious - MAD is a well known acronym for anyone from about 40 or older - due to the Cold War.

if you do not know what MAD is you are either younger than 40 or not Canadian/American/European and also ot from those lands and younger or not than 40).

its a well know acronym for americans/canadians/europeans of 40 and older.

[gaffo]

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight

Good advice. BTW a fight is finished when one side surrenders. That means you can end a fight without ending the life of an opponent.

yep, and why the guy i talked about is rotting in jail today.

[gaffo]

Is the policy of MAD about cost/benefit? Really, tell me what you think.

Just curious. What is, "MAD?"

Mutually Assured Destruction—first operationalized by the USSR & the US, whereby each superpower maintained a nuclear arsenal that could completely annihilate the other, thus making a nuclear war unthinkable. It guaranteed a mutual standoff.

my prior reply to that person was before i saw your reply.

my bad.

your summary was concise and to the point.

i "love" - though horrid mentally - MAD - it works, and the best solution we have until we rid of all nukes int he rainbow unicorn cumbiya of the ideal world peace of the future.

[gaffo]

BTW a fight is finished when one side surrenders. That means you can end a fight without ending the life of an opponent.

The problem is, those who believe fighting and force are the right way to settle things are usually vindictive as well. If you are fighting because every other avenue of defense has been blocked, you haven't really won unless the one threatening you is made unable to seek revenge.

I would never use force except as a last resort, but when I do, it's total. It's only ever come to that once in my life, long ago in Southeast Asia. It was in a war zone, but the experience was as a civilian. I blame myself for being where such a situation could occur, but not for what I did. I now have a better strategy of defense. The first rule is, "don't be there when it happens."

if you used force to secure your safety, its ok, if you used more force than that then not ok.

i hope you did not kill the guy if you did not need to to secure your safety.

I would never initiate force against anyone else,

good.

but anyone who threatens me with force, which I have no option to avoid, has declared that they are unworthy of human consideration and will receive none, which usually means they have chosen to die rather than cease threatening. I'm only giving them what they have choosen.

not good, dissproportionate force in reply to offence given is not "legal" per self defence.

but "heat of the moment" is a valid defense for a judge/and or jury to consider (addrenaline and such) - for mitigating judgement/sentance.


- sounds like you went through an ordial, would like to hear about it if you are willing.

none of my business of course.