 |
 |
Gunnar: 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 ones. 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. Peace Rick Seddon McIntosh, NM