17
Apr
2014
Violence Will Only Make Things Worse, At Bundy Ranch and Elsewhere
I’m really glad to see Lew Rockwell, Gary North, and Robert Wenzel come out quite clearly in opposing the use of violence in the Bundy standoff. I’m singling these three out because they obviously appeal more to the “tough guy” libertarians and so it’s braver for them to come out and say liberty-folk bringing guns to Nevada is a bad idea.
(I realize a lot of times I’m a smart aleck and it’s not obvious what I’m “really” saying. The above is frank; I totally agree with them and I’m glad they have the courage to say it, because there are a lot of libertarian Internet warriors who will call you various names for voicing such an opinion.)
Did they come out before or after the threat of violence led the BLM to defuse the situation by retreating? Before or after the BLM’s action refuted what many here said about them?
Who threatened violence?
The BLM
Them too. But they weren’t the only ones.
The men with guns on the highway overpass. Several of Bundy’s widely quoted supporters. Oh, and some Cliven guy still does.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/16/cliven-bundy-threatens-violence-against-federal-agents-as-sean-hannity-eggs-him-on/
“The recalcitrant rancher threatened violence against federal agents if they dared try to arrest him on the orders of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).”
In other words: If they used violence first. This isn’t a cop out, I’m not defining “violence” as a violation of property rights (which they clearly already did). In order to arrest him they would have to use actual, physical violence against another human. So, the BLM would have nothing to worry about unless if they struck first.
I don’t know about the rest of the people. As a whole, it was surprisingly peaceful.
It was. Bob is hyping that scene. But while I basically say a pox on both, I think there was a lot of posturing before a sensible, probably temporary, de-escalation.
So when the BLM was beating up protesters, setting dogs on people, letting loose with tasers… does any of that count as violence?
On what basis does “deal with them” count as a threat anyway? I mean, more of a threat than shooting someone with a taser.
Google “them too” on this domain, or scroll up a few inches.
Defuse by retreating.
You are funny ken.
Kudos to Rockwell and Wenzel, especially Rockwell. North always scares me with comments like “Harry Reid says, “It’s not over.” I hope he is right. It’s great PR for liberty.” But I’m glad he wants them to avoid violence too.
Some like North more than you do.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/10/gary-north-king-of-the-internet.html
As I understand it, Rockwell, North and Wenzel are claiming that the Bundy Ranch isn’t the time or place.. They’re taking, so I think, a tactical position, not a position with respect to the use of defensive violence per se.
Your post, and I’m sorry if it seems I’m trivially picking a nit with you, begs the question. I may be reading way too much into a short post but there’s an implication to your post that has to be called out. You ignore the distinction between judicious use of defensive violence and refusal to use it at all.
If you claim that defensive violence is never moral and/or never efficacious then fine. I think you should say that with as little equivocation as you can muster.
If you’ve addressed this elsewhere and I’m “strawmanning” you then I’m sorry.
Mises said something to the effect that totalitarianism reaches critical mass around the time that the stock market disappears. It might be helpful if libertarian intellectuals identified what’s the critical mass for appropriate use of defensive violence.
On other posts Bob is unequivocal. He is strictly pacifist. He would not have shot Breivik even as he took aim at another child.
Are you sure about this Ken? In his posts on pacifism he said this: “But before leaving this issue, I want to point out a certain inequity. One of the techniques that my critics used to point out that I personally wasn’t a “true pacifist” was to ask, “Suppose your wife were going to be raped. Would you still refuse to use violence?” To this, I had to admit that I would not.” (http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/05/on-pacifism-part-iii-of-iii.html)
I thought his position was not “pure” pacifism, but more that non-violence should be the default position.
If there is one thing that economics has taught me–Mises being a great standout here–it’s that nobody knows what it is that they are going to do in a particular instance until they are actually confronted with it and carry it through.
Obviously, this is so simple that economics isn’t even required to come to this conclusion, it’s almost innate to human understanding. Common sense, you might say.
In any case, anybody who thinks that non-violence should be the default position, as opposed to almost every other possible position, is aces in my book.
You see no difference between default and only?
Remind me never to hire you as a coder!
🙂
I think he was just saying that if he were actually confronted with an extreme situation like that, he might just throw his pacifist principles to the winds and act on emotion. But that’s different from saying that that’s how people *ought* to behave.
It’s similar to the answer I gave when Ken B asked me about the Breivik example:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/12/krugman-fiat-money-is-backed-by-men-with-guns.html#comment-106751
“It’s hard to predict what a human would actually do in a given situation, since we’re prone to all sorts of irrational emotions. But if you’re asking what I think I ought to do and what I hope I’d do, then no, I wouldn’t either shoot or tackle Breivik (at least if tackling him would injure him).”
Well, we’d have to ask Bob, but he also said this:
“I would answer that the pacifist is one who views violence as unsavory per se. If you like, we can say that the types of cases in which such a person would actually use violence would be a gauge of the “purity” of his pacifism.”
And: “[I]f someone were attacking my younger brother, I would probably use violence to assist him if I saw no alternative.”
So, I’m not sure, but it seemed like he was willing to use some violence if there was no alternative, if the aggression was in action, and if it was a serious threat (not just slightly beat up). Maybe I got that impression from my own bias though, because that’s pretty much my position.
As for Breivik, I can’t see myself shooting him, but I would definitely tackle him if I had the chance. You raise a good point though – I can’t really know what I would do for sure in that situation.
I asked him point blank. He said, no he would not shoot Breivik.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/11/the-economics-of-the-great-depression-online-class.html#comment-49889
This is where Bob accuses me of lying.
This post is odd if you read it. Bob accused DK of wanting to bomb children, using the same sort of confuse consequences and goals argument we see here a lot. DK and I objected and Bob removed the passage. So, since Bob zapped his own accusation I cannot quote it. But you can get the sense if you read the replies.
Thanks for the link.
Although, I don’t see where he accused you of lying, unless if you’re saying that got zapped.
For accurately quoting him a few days ago. The topic was the authorship of the Ron Paul newsletters, was it Rockwell or anyone from LVMI.
Oh! No i mean that after accurately recalling some Bob quotation Bob will at this juncture accuse me of lying. I eas not talking about that location in the old post. Bob did add me, at my insistence, to his bloodthirsty child murderer list, with DK, until he took it down.
Well, one problem is you are very close to a liar
If not a liar.
I found this where you refer to a comment by Bob re. Breivik
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/12/krugman-fiat-money-is-backed-by-men-with-guns.html
/
Ken B
So let me ask you the question that so angered Bob when I asked it. You are present when Breivik is about to take aim at another victim. Had you a gun would you shoot him? Were you near enough would you tackle him?
/
Couldn’t find what you called Bob’s angry reply to you. Can I trouble you for a link?
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/11/the-economics-of-the-great-depression-online-class.html#comment-49889
For anybody who wants to see my earlier (like from grad school, I think) thoughts on pacifism, here’s Part III of a three-part series, with links to I and II.
Mr. Murphy, your position is “Don’t defend yourself”. This is untenable.
(I didn’t read the “Part III” link; I was going to make a top-level comment but decided to reply to yours.)
Would you at least be willing to say that the Bundy’s have every right to defend themselves with deadly force, even if you thought that, due to the result, it would not be expedient to do so?
“Mr. Murphy, your position is “Don’t defend yourself”. This is untenable.” Why is it untenable?
Is a cellular organism without an immune system tenable?
The policy is not an evolutionarily stable one, so cannot serve as the basis of a workable social order unless it is practiced by a minority willing to free ride.
But I believe you DO believe in self defence. You believe in the morality of the government using force to defend people, including yourself. Self defence by proxy. It is only individual violent action you rule out. Is that correct?
“The policy is not an evolutionarily stable one, so cannot serve as the basis of a workable social order unless it is practiced by a minority willing to free ride.” I assume guest meant morally tenable. There are of course all sorts of negative consequences that might ensue from rejecting self-defense (and have ensued historically), but I’m not a consequentialist. You shouldn’t engage in evil just to effect a socially desirable outcome.
“But I believe you DO believe in self defence. You believe in the morality of the government using force to defend people, including yourself. Self defence by proxy.” No, I believe there are legitimate functions of government, but self-defense is not one of them. Materialistic concerns like self-preservation are too petty a concern to warrant the use of force.
“It is only individual violent action you rule out. Is that correct?” This part is correct. I think it can in principle be justified for government to use violence.
So government may not use force to defend people? I’m not clear about for what purpose you think government should be able to use compulsion, which might entail killing if materialistic concerns like self defence or the defence of others doesn’t count. (I am not making the obvious point that all concerns are materialistic because there are no souls or spirits. We disagree on that but that is not what my question is about. I am seeking the criteria you use to distinguish.)
Hindus believe that the only purpose for which violence can in principle be justified is the enforcement of justice, because justice transcends the physical world.
Sorry Keshav, honest question:
How can you be a pacifist when you believe that violence is permissible?
So when is defending some innocent person under attack NOT a just act. is it permissible to stop a mugging? I assume so because mugging is “unjust”. But if muggings were pleasant and benefical, keenly sought by the victims, would they still be “unjust”? I think you have to say yes, or you are a really a consequentialist/utilitarian who is just ducking the label.
This is not a fanciful example as it looks. Consider the attitude of Islam towards homosexual sex. Or the attitude of Bob’s church.
Hank, Hindus believe in pacifism as far as how ordinary people live their lives, but we’re not absolute pacifists when it comes to government action. (Although even in that sphere we are far more pacifist than other religions.)
Ken B, I didn’t say that violence is only justified if it’s just – that would of course be tautology. And no, using force to stop a robbery wouldn’t be justified, because protection of material belongings is far too petty a concern to justify violence. Violence is only potentially justified when used to enforce justice, in the sense of punishing evildoers. So to use your example, you couldn’t shoot a robber to prevent loss of property, but afterwards you could in principle be justified in punishing the robber, because stealing is an immoral act.
So you don’t think ethical rules should be universally applied?
Why is it permissible for some people (those in government) to not practice pacifism?
Hank, the idea is that when a government is acting on behalf of the gods, then it is allowed to do certain things would otherwise be immoral. (This doesn’t apply to governments that aren’t acting on behalf of the gods. So an illegitimate government couldn’t use violence.)
that would*
Okay I understand your position now. Thanks for clarifying. I very much disagree with you. I believe the government should completely stay out of theological matters.
It seems to me Keshav you arguing that tackling Breivik to prevent a shooting is immoral because the saving of a child is too trivial a matter to justify the tackle, but that to punish Breivik later greater force may be used against him, possibly even killing him.
A pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure?
“It seems to me Keshav you arguing that tackling Breivik to prevent a shooting is immoral because the saving of a child is too trivial a matter to justify the tackle, but that to punish Breivik later greater force may be used against him, possibly even killing him.” Yes, that’s the long and short of it.
And yes, I realize how absurd this juxtaposition sounds. But I think it would make more sense to you if you had more context about the Hindu belief system.
I assure you it does not seem remotely as absurd as homesteading, the alleged proof of the action axiom, argumentation ethics, the infallibility claims of Rothbardians, Chem trails, JFK conspiracies, or Tom Woods on the Civil War. It seems based on a (fallacious of course) notion of the will of the gods and who does or does not have their mandate in a given circumstance.
… the alleged proof of the action axiom, argumentation ethics, the infallibility claims of Rothbardians, Chem trails, JFK conspiracies, …
… alien abductions, the boogey man, Mentos + Coke exploding your stomach …
I see your point now.
“Violence is only potentially justified when used to enforce justice, in the sense of punishing evildoers. So to use your example, you couldn’t shoot a robber to prevent loss of property, but afterwards you could in principle be justified in punishing the robber, because stealing is an immoral act.”
I’m with Ken here. But, even if we ignore the strangeness of being able to kill a person after the crime but not able to tackle the person during the crime, I still think there is a problem. Isn’t a threat of violence an evil act? It certainly violates the NAP. So, if someone is running at you with a knife, why wouldn’t you be justified in punishing them? They already committed a crime. In the case of Breivik, he had gone even further than a threat, and had already shot people. Why couldn’t you punish him immediately?
I almost take the opposite view, where I would be willing to use violence during some attacks, but would be much less willing afterward. I can’t see how locking up thieves, for example, is consistent with pacifism (or even worse, brutally killing the thief, if there isn’t a limit to how much “justice” can be enforced).
… the idea is that when a government is acting on behalf of the gods, then it is allowed to do certain things would otherwise be immoral.
I actually agree with this, as presented.
If Gods are actually telling people to do such and such, then it would be the just – or at least the safe – thing to do.
Of course, unless one is able to prove that Gods are speaking to them, no other person should feel obligated to believe them.
So, if someone is running at you with a knife, why wouldn’t you be justified in punishing them? They already committed a crime.
Yes.
In the case of Breivik, he had gone even further than a threat, and had already shot people. Why couldn’t you punish him immediately?
That makes sense.
As an aside: Breivik was right to be afraid of what these kids were being raised to become.
But because they hadn’t done anything, he should have targeted those who were currently in government, instead.
“Isn’t a threat of violence an evil act? It certainly violates the NAP.” I’m not actually sure what Hinduism prescribes as the punishment of a threat, if it prescribes any punishment at all.
“So, if someone is running at you with a knife, why wouldn’t you be justified in punishing them?” Let me clarify something. When I said “you”, I didn’t mean the victim. I think only the government can in principle be allowed to use violence. Ordinary people aren’t allowed to engage in violence or punish people.
“They already committed a crime. In the case of Breivik, he had gone even further than a threat, and had already shot people. Why couldn’t you punish him immediately?” Again, we should distinguish between the government and an ordinary individual. But yes, in the case of Breivik, once he had already shot someone the government could in principle have the authority to bring him to justice.
“I almost take the opposite view, where I would be willing to use violence during some attacks, but would be much less willing afterward.” I don’t think you should defend yourself. I think hurting someone else (even if that someone happens to be a bad person) just because you’re concerned about saving your own skin isn’t justified.
As far as punishment goes, according to Hinduism good deeds should always lead to good outcomes and bad deeds to bad outcomes. If government doesn’t mete out this punishment while the person is alive, then they’ll generally be punished later on, whether in the afterlife or in future births. So in some the government would be sparing you of enduring other forms of punishment.
“Isn’t a threat of violence an evil act? It certainly violates the NAP.”
According to the ‘anarcho-capitalist’ interpretation of the NAP, if you stick a fence around some empty land you can then threaten violence against anyone who intends to go on to that land without your permission, and violently attack anyone who goes on to that land without your permission.
“I think only the government can in principle be allowed to use violence. Ordinary people aren’t allowed to engage in violence or punish people.”
How does the government gain this ability to punish in principle? The government is just made up of a group of people. Also, does this mean you think the government has the right to exist in the first place? Do they have a right to tax people, for example? I’m assuming you are not an anarchist then, because it seems nobody would have the ability to punish justly in such a society.
Furthermore, if the government has the right to do this in principle, then surely they can give this ability to other people. For instance, every new police officer has to be given this authority to punish by the government, correct? But I see no reason why the government would have to only give this authority to the police/courts.military. They could give it to everyone – which, in fact, they have essentially already done. The government recognizes the right to self-defense, for instance. If they are able to add that people have the moral authority (just like they do with police officers) to punish, then everyone could punish other people for crimes and be consistent with this “pacifism.” In short, I don’t see why the government couldn’t just declare everyone part of the government (which a lot of people already think, as noted by the phrase “we are the government”). Once this happened, the vast majority of people in the US, all willing to use violence in many cases, would be considered pacifists.
“I don’t think you should defend yourself. I think hurting someone else (even if that someone happens to be a bad person) just because you’re concerned about saving your own skin isn’t justified.”
Not just my own skin. Also the skin of other people. If some guy just started punching me, I wouldn’t fight back. If someone pulled out a gun and started shooting children, I would attempt to stop him. Even if the guy was only aiming at me at first, I think it is reasonable to think that if he was willing to do that, there is a good chance he would go on to hurt other people. If I somehow knew that someone was only going to hurt me, no, I wouldn’t fight back with violence.
“As far as punishment goes, according to Hinduism good deeds should always lead to good outcomes and bad deeds to bad outcomes.” Okay, but bad deeds aren’t only violent deeds. I assume you would agree that me putting up a sign that says “No blacks allowed” at my restaurant, and continually yelling insults at black people, and trying to get others to do the same would be a “bad deed.” So, can the government punish for that as well? If so, just like with taxes, the government would be going beyond responding to violence – they would be the ones actually initiating it.
“If government doesn’t mete out this punishment while the person is alive, then they’ll generally be punished later on, whether in the afterlife or in future births. So in some the government would be sparing you of enduring other forms of punishment.” How kind of them. Of course, this rests upon an afterlife or future birth existing.
I prefer a policy of forgiveness.
Keshav
Is it fair to say the basis for your opinions we are discussing here is that they are based in scripture? Your argument, scripture says so.
“According to the ‘anarcho-capitalist’ interpretation of the NAP, if you stick a fence around some empty land you can then threaten violence against anyone who intends to go on to that land without your permission, and violently attack anyone who goes on to that land without your permission.”
Huh, that’s funny. I thought I was an anarcho-capitalist and a supporter of the NAP, but I would always have considered that a violation of the NAP. But, if Philippe says that is the anarcho-capitalist interpretation of the NAP, it must be so.
In all seriousness, I have read many libertarian works on the NAP, and have never heard anything that would even imply this. If you build a fence, you own the fence. You can’t stop someone from getting over the fence using means that do not impact the fence. For example: Jumping over, gliding over, flying over, using a ladder to climb up and then hop over, etc. would all be justified. You could then homestead the land. Furthermore, it has to be unhomesteaded, not just empty. If I walked across the same empty path every day, I would have homesteaded the right to walk that path (which is why you can’t just build a fence around someone’s home). You can’t build a fence stopping that action without violating my right. So, if I went to the moon and built a fence around some land, it’s true I could stop most people from getting there. But, it was also completely unused anyway, so I didn’t actually make society any worse off by blocking that land.
Philippe is referring to homesteading. You really should look into enclosure and John Locke.
I’ve read Locke before, Ken. I don’t recall his position on enclosure. But John Locke was not an anarcho-capitalist
But okay, I admit I went too far with my comment. There are probably quite a few ancaps that think enclosure is good enough, so what I implied was incorrect. However, a quick Google search did bring this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property#Enclosure_vs_mixing_labor, which does say “most” natural law theorists don’t think enclosure is good enough. That has been my impression from what I’ve read. Block goes as far to say that enclosure of un-homesteaded land isn’t even allowed, I think (or they have to let them through or something like that).
As is often the case, there is disagreement among you as to when it is ok to threaten and violently attack people and when it isn’t.
Some think it’s ok to threaten and violently attack people once you’ve stuck a fence around some land, whereas others think it’s only ok to threaten and violently attack people if you’ve also done something like chopped down some trees or dug some holes.
Then there is the issue of ‘intellectual property’. Some among you think it’s ok to threaten and violently attack people if they copy an idea you had without your permission, whilst others don’t.
From the wikipedia page you linked to:
“justification through mixing of labor rests upon the assumption that land, something uncreated (as in not created by any human being), can be rightly owned by way of a non sequitur in which mixing labor with land somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the created products of the labor.”
So Reece, if all this is derived with apodictic certainty from first principles, why do even homesteaders disagree?
Btw this ties back to utility comparisons. In my vie land is improved by looking at it. I mingle the labor of my gazing with it. Mine all mine. Philippe mingles the labor of his fencing. His all his. How do you judge? Welll first you have to make a value judgment. And then you have to grapple with the nonsensical mysticism of this alleged mingling. And then you have to address the question of why a relationship that involves me can be settled by a process that excluded me. Etc.
The original point was that I thought Keshav was a libertarian (I don’t know if he is or not), so I was appealing to that when I said threats of violence are aggression. Because, if they are, then the punishment should be able to take place right after the threat. Obviously for something like IP I couldn’t have done that, because there is actual disagreement.
As for the Wiki thing, yeah, I found that strange, as it seemed to be a clear bias in the article. Someone should probably fix that so it’s more objective (like “one criticism of…”), and maybe take out the “most” for natural law theorists being against owning fenced off land if there is no evidence for that. That was the first thing that came up when I Googled something like “fenced property locke” Looking further into it, it seems Ken was right about Locke. I wouldn’t put too much weight on this compared to ancap philosophers, because the Lockean Proviso makes it so this wouldn’t be much of a problem – but most ancaps don’t accept the Lockean Proviso.
Philippe:
“Some think it’s ok to threaten and violently attack people once you’ve stuck a fence around some land, whereas others think it’s only ok to threaten and violently attack people if you’ve also done something like chopped down some trees or dug some holes.”
Some think that it’s OK to threaten and violently attack people if the victims aren’t communists.
Keshav is very far from being a libertarian, as I am sure you know now.
😉
“if all this is derived with apodictic certainty from first principles, why do even homesteaders disagree?”
Well, I don’t think it is all derived from certainty. You can’t prove any ethical point (or at least I don’t think you can), so if you start at two separate points, you’re going to have differences in what you derive (for example, Kinsella thinks you can have property only in scarce items, but I disagree – we have a slightly different starting point). Even those that start at the same point arriving at difficulties isn’t much of a problem. There are disagreements in all sorts of fields.
As for gazing, no, utility comparisons are not necessary. I’m going to take a bit of an unusual approach here. I think that you *can* homestead through gazing. However, I also look at property rights in groups of rights. So, you homestead certain rights. For example, suppose I am on a deserted island, and build a hut. I built the hut for the purpose of maybe sleeping, reading, whatever. Now, suppose someone builds a giant black dome over my hut. They don’t touch my property at all. I would argue that they are violating my rights. Because, when I homesteaded the hut for certain purposes, I also homesteaded the right to light from the sun, just by gazing at the light or using the light for reading. So, if someone built a giant dome they would be violating this right. Another example would be if someone built a really ugly house next to mine. There is a possibility that that really did harm me and that I homesteaded the house for a nice view too. In that case, the person would be violating my right.
So, there wouldn’t need to be any utility comparisons between separate people. There would need to be judgments on solely your own value scale by arbitrators in some cases. For example, I doubt you would win a case complaining about an ugly house very often, unless if you moved into some area where nobody else was at first. They would probably judge that you did not homestead it for that purpose, and are just trying to get money from other people, which would probably be true.
I don’t know what you mean by your last question. If you mean how some courts would rule on property rights, yeah, that can be a problem. But, that is a question of rights enforcement, not on rights themselves. I would argue that it would be much better at protecting those rights in an anarchist society than the current. Society would still have input, obviously. If the vast majority of society doesn’t think you have the right to something, I can’t imagine any societal organization that would fix that.
… can be rightly owned by way of a non sequitur in which mixing labor with land somehow makes the uncreated land equivalent to the created products of the labor.”
All products are made completely from uncreated materials.
The point is that by transforming (key word) a resource, you have incurred the cost of your time and labor, and so for anyone else to presume the authority to do what they want with it is to presume that you are their slave.
“All products are made completely from uncreated materials.”
Yeah, exactly. That passage was particularly strange, even if Wikipedia was supposed to be biased. I might edit it and say it’s a criticism, but then I would have to find someone who used it as a criticism 🙁 Maybe it’s best for someone to edit it out completely.
“The policy is not an evolutionarily stable one,”
WOW, pacifism is not the same thing as fatalism.
You are allowed to defend yourself against animals and hurricanes for example.
Well, it depends on your brand of pacifism. Hindus don’t believe in general believe in killing animals either.
*don’t in general believe*
Even so, you are allowed to set up a fence or barrier so its less likely an animal will enter your house and eat you.
Its not like you must go out and give yourself to the animal.
How did hurricanes and wolverines get involved in a discussion of pacifism?
(A discussion of Rothbardism, sure, then snarling beasts and blowhards are relevant.)
Sorry Ken, didn’t mean to interrupt. Don’t let me ruin your conversation guys! For the record I am not a Rothbardian in Ethics.
I’m not sure what your point is. Even in that case the policy — complete pacifism in the face of any action by any person — is not ESS.
There is a high probability I would survive and pass down my genes if I did not practice any violence toward people, even in self defense.
Personally, I have never been in a situation where another person was about to kill me.
Even though this situation occurs for some, its relatively rare for most (at least in the US).
Sorry Ken, maybe I am just confused about ESS?
I see what you mean. I would just be free riding from those that provided the defense.
When most people think of an ethical system, they think of the consequences of that system as applied to the entire human population. If this were possible, pacifism would be very desirable.
Hank,
Would your probability of surviving and passing down your genes be higher or lower if you practiced violence only in self defense, or practiced it not at all?
That’s the issue here. It’s not about whether you have a 99% chance of living even if you’re totally non-violent. If self-defense ups your chance to 99.99%, then it is the superior evolutionary option.
Hank
Evolutionarily stable strategy. Probably best to google. But a strategy in a long repeated game that can become and remain dominant. One thing it must do is work well with others following the same strategy. Another is do better than competing strategies that try to invade a stable population. Pure pacifism will be destroyed by predator strategies so cannot be ess.
Of course. Very few organisms have immune systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_immune_system
Though I will concede I should have specified multi cellular.
You reap what you sew.
Bob, you are right as far as you go. But I also want me and my kids to live as individuals. Also, as I think of it,Brazilian jiu jitsu is largely pacifist. So depending on your definition of “violence” one cab still defend themselves at some margin of my pacifism.
Detractors seem to cherry pick their definition of pacifism based on their biased assumptions of how it would pan out (e.g. “pacifism invites violence”). They don’t know.
I’d also settle for non-aggression from people who don’t want to go pacifist.
Another thought: they don’t need to know you are a pacifist.
One time I had a bully who defused the situation by getting headbutted in the nose.
He didn’t get KTFO, but the next one would, because at that moment I had an epiphany…”this is what works.”
We try to avoid the passive voice around here, Andrew’.
My voice strikes you as passive does it?
It’s a grammer joke.
“… by getting headbutted …” vs. “… I headbutted him …”
Passive Voice vs. Active Voice.
He’s being Grammar Nazi / RoboCop, at the moment, instead of RoboCop / Grammar Nazi.
Thanks to Philippe for the assist:
[Time stamped]
Zoolander : Part 1 / 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHwWXOi7wZQ#t=7m33s