Your statement seems to assume that some primeval violence created all the
violence that we now face.   If this is your assumption please support it.

Dogs fight and the bigger and quicker one wins.  The loser doesn't fight the
winner again.  Bull elk fight each other for breeding rights.  Cow elk have
no choice in the matter; some might call this sexual violence.  If you are a
carnivore your very diet visits violence upon animals.  We even have laws as
to how those animals can be "humanely" killed to decorate your pizza and
enliven your taste buds.

Violence has most assuredly been used to decisively end violence.  Stating
otherwise is to state an ideology and not historical fact. The unpleasant
fact that violence seems to be forever with us has nothing to do with  the
many instances of violent people violently stopped from their violence.  To
arrest a violent criminal and lock him up against his will is a violent
solution to a violent problem.  A non-violent solution would be to ask the
violent person to submit to therapy.  If he refused the only non-violent
solution is to ignore him.  Your non-violent philosophy would lead to the
enslavement (a violence) of all peaceful people by the unchecked violent

The only moral excuse for any government and the subjection of one
individual to another individual's or group of individuals' will is for the
protection of individuals from another's violence.  That protective
assurance must include the ability to violently prevent or violantly stop
the violence.

The moral society ensures that its use of violence is measured and
appropriate to the circumstances.  An immoral society does not protect its
people from violence.

Tibet should pose an excellent lesson to all who believe that violence can
be dwelt with non-violently.

Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM