Forum Post: Is it ever morally acceptable to use the thereat of violence against the non-violent as a means to enforce your idea of morality?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 6:12 p.m. EST by stonemadeflesh
(29)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The following video makes the case that the violent means used to enforce socialism make it incompatible with a commitment to non-violence and thus incompatible with the theachings of Jesus.
Laws are only meaningful because of the underlying threat of force. Therefore if you pass a broad system of laws you are using the threat of force (and actual force) on non-violent people.
Socialism= evil; or technically Classical Socialism, otherwise known as Communism. Social Democracy is not Socialism and in point of fact, Social Democrats were killed by the Communist, in the Soviet Union. Anyone suggesting that Socialism is "simply referring to public and collective ownership," is a liar or ill informed. That is like saying Nazism isn't that Hitler thing, it is all about State directed industrial reinvention and getting Blondes together, socially.
Do not listen to left wing University professor spin. I hope that these Professors will remember that not all of us are drug addict idiots, getting our history from Leftist loonies. In the USA, when Political Scientists discuss Socialism, Socialism refers to Classical Socialism; usually as understood and defined by Friedrich August Hayek. Please do not suggest that the biggest mass murdering movement in history was all about collective ownership, because some of us actually know how stupid that sounds.
"Socialism" simply refers to public or collective ownership of resources.
It doesn't imply any more violence than private ownership of resources.
I could turn your statement around and talk about how the violent means used to enforce capitalism is incompatible with a commitment to non-violence and thus is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus - and I'd have Tolstoy, Gandhi, and MLK to be back me up.
QED
socialism just like every other form of command economy uses a very broad framework of laws and backs them up with the wapons of the state.
Capitalism does not require the weapons of the state. If bill brews some beer and sells it to his neighbor, there is capitalism. no guns required.
I challenge you to show how the threat of violence against the non-violent populace is required for capitalism to exist.
Socialism does not equal a "command economy" - there is such a thing as market socialism. In practice, countries have mixed economies, with some sectors (such as education and healthcare) publically owned and other sectors (such as consumer goods) privately owned. This is all very basic political science and economics that you seem to be unaware of.
In practice capitalism employs violence all the time. The organized violence of the state is typically deployed to serve the ends of private enterprise. Your "challenge" is laughably easy for anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history. Look up the history of the industrial revolution and labor in the United States - child labor, 14+ hour days in wretched conditions, armed thugs deployed to keep workers in line - that is all violence. To use a more modern example, the World Bank and IMF use fraud and force to induce third world countries to take out loans they can never repay - the austerity that is then forced upon them results in the deaths of 22,000 children per year. That is violence. Thanks to NAFTA, Haitian farmers can not afford to The US, in the name of advancing 'capitalism', has removed dozens of democratically elected governments since the 1950s. That is violence.
Invading other countries for resources.
Macing or baton whipping peaceful demonstrators.
Putting dictators in charge over democratically elected officials to destroy the imaginary threat of Communism...
I can go on and on and on...
That being said - Pure Capitalism cannot exist in a world of might. Pure Communism cannot exist in a world of might.
I was merely answering your call.
Taking resources by force is a fundamental requirement of socialism though.
So I suppose after we invaded those other countries for resources - we just handed them out for free?
When will you Libertarians wake up to reality?
Invading other countries has noting to do with capitalism. If you accept the underlying premise of socialism, that it is morally acceptable to use govenment force to sieze resources, then how can you object to this practice.
You can go on and on but not a single thing you listed has anything to do with capitalism.
LOL!
"Invading other countries for resources" ---> To SELL
and
"Putting dictators in charge over democratically elected officials to destroy the imaginary threat of Communism..." ----> To be ALLOWED to SELL
Doesn't count as capitalism? Be reasonable now.
Even you as a Libertarian must take off your tunnel vision glasses once in a while.
I am being perfectly reasonable. Those things have nothing to do with capitalism.
Wow there might be something tangible to Libertarian ideology after all.
You guys must be experts on picking out the best drugs ever. Cause I can tell you're on some real "dope shit" right now.
Sophistry proves nothing. You have been decieved concerning capitalism my friend.
Using violence against the non-violent is never okay. Ever. Some would advocate that violence isn't okay under any circumstances