'Violence’ and the Liberals Who Deal With Them

[BerettaNut92]

This from my [former] college paper

‘Violence’ and the Liberals Who Deal With Them
by: Bach Ho

Liberals condemn the war against terrorism by portraying it as just as evil as terrorism itself. They do this by shoving both terrorism and self-defense against terrorism into one package called “violence†and then condemning “violence†as such. In this shabby “package-deal,†liberals ignore and hopefully destroy any difference between initiation of physical force and the retaliation of force in self-defense—to destroy any difference between the cop and the robber.

The initiation of physical force is beginning the use of physical force: a man robbing a store, a man breaking into a woman’s home to rape her, an angry wife pulling a gun on her husband.

The retaliation of physical force is force used in self-defense against initiated force: the store manager who shoots the robber, the woman reaching for a knife and stabbing her rapist, the husband knocking the gun from his wife’s hands.

There is an essential, fundamental difference between the initiation of force and the retaliation of force. The rapist is acting immorally and has violated the right to life of his victim. The victim who stabs her rapist is acting morally and is defending her right to life. The initiation of physical force is evil and should be outlawed. The retaliation of force, by contrast, should not only be legal, but fully encouraged and celebrated.

Liberals stand no chance by openly stating in full sunlight that both the initiation of force and force in self-defense are morally and politically equal. They resort to a package deal: the initiation of physical force and the retaliation of physical force in self-defense do have something in common. They both involve violence.

The idea of violence has a negative emotional connotation. It connotes conflict, pain, bruises, broken bones, dead bodies, demolished cars and buildings—the destruction of life and property. In a vacuum, and out of any context, no one would be in support of violence.

But violence is violence in some context. Both the thief robbing a store and the manager shooting him are acting violently. Both the man raping the woman and the woman stabbing her rapist are acting violently. Both the wife trying to shoot her husband and the husband trying to knock the gun from her hands are acting violently. It is clear, from a simple glance at these examples, that one cannot categorically condemn “violence†as such. The violence of a man raping a woman is wrong. The violence of a woman stabbing her rapist is right. Initiated violence is wrong. Violence in self-defense is right.

Thus, violence as such is neither right nor wrong. One must ask: violence in what context? In the context of the initiation of physical force, or in the context of the retaliation of physical force in self-defense? The former is morally obscene. The latter is a moral obligation.

Liberals know that a superficial consideration of the idea of “violence†comes across as negative, as something automatically evil and to be condemned. They take advantage of this immediate negative emotional connotation by categorically condemning violence and hoping that listeners will condemn both terrorism and the nation defending itself against terrorism on the grounds of their both being violent.

If you have seen signs at anti-war rallies that say “stop the violence†or something similar, then you have witnessed this package deal. These signs are saying that shedding the blood of Americans is no more evil than shedding the blood of terrorists who initiated the bloodshed.

Liberals want you to think that you have only two choices: pro-violence or anti-violence, regardless of context. If you fall for this trap and declare yourself to be anti-violent, you are condemning the woman who struggles for her life against her rapist. You equate the violent terrorist with the violently terrorized.

If a lay American accepts this “violence is evil†package-deal, he couldn’t support the war against terrorism, he couldn’t support the use of force against terrorists who initiated its use—he couldn’t support self-defense, justice and America’s right to exist. If America were to accept this package, it would mean her death.

When liberals deliver this package, do not accept it.



Bach Ho is a fourth-year ICS major.

 

[Devonai]

You mean Skunkabilly isn't your real name???

 

[BerettaNut92]

To clarify, I didn't write the article

I didn't finish ICS (I Can't Socialize / I Can't Score) major, I only minored in it.

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Well, if you didn't write it, can I plagarize it?

(Dang, it's 4:50 AM and I wish I was asleep instead of prowling gun boards...)

- pdmoderator

 

[Mark Tyson]

'Liberal' is a pretty broad brush. Liberal would include people like Christopher Hitchens, an adamant supporter of both the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. When the author says liberal he should say pacifist. Peace at all cost is a pretty absurd philosophy. It's glorified suicide, with a healthy dose of self-satisfied moral superiority, rather akin to our current Islamic fundamentlist enemies. Retaliation and self defense are both perfectly legitimate uses of force. We should call these guys the "peace through suicide crowd".

 

[greyhound]

Theres a post over in "Handguns:Autoloaders" where I find out that self defense is not a legal reason for pistol ownership in Australia, in fact the law says your pistol must be locked up unloaded at home - and the authorities can come inspect you to make sure that it is.

How do the Australian government (and the type of people in this article) expect folks to defend themselves if needed? Or like the article says, do they believe violence for self defense is just as bad as the mugger/rapist/murderer?

I think what these leftists (I agree with Mark Tyson: there are liberals, and then there are leftists) miss is the human nature for self-preservation: when threatrened with death, a human being is not going to try to "reason" with the attacker, they are going to do everything they can to survive.

And the leftists can call that "violence" if they want.

Course, anyone that believes waving puppet heads around is going to stop a war has already pretty much used up their credibility!