Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jack Dee's avatar

Well good on you Simon for actually going there, I don't think you've thought very deeply on the topic but,

"Violence can only be justified if the Government is non-democratic and repressive."

is at least a starting point, I think you're wrong but at least it's a start.

I don't want to get all "Philosophy Major" here, but the problem is you don't define your terms. I could do a series of weak definitions that make "Violence can only be justified if the Government is non-democratic and repressive" so obviously true it's trivial, or I could do strong definitions of the same terms that make the statement totally false. But they would be my definitions not yours, I can make some assumptions about what you mean but again they are just my assumptions.

For example, I assume that you mean political violence, not personal, and that you are mainly concerned with domestic internal political violence but then in this Substack post you mention the Israeli - Hamas war. Whether or not that particular war is an internal or external political matter is kind of the whole point of that war.

So, specifically what do you mean by "Democracy", "Government" and "Oppressive"? Each one of those terms has a spectrum of possible definitions anyone of which could be legitimate.

Again, I assume, and I assume that you mean a definition that is practical and effective, not just formal and nominal. For example, North Korea calls itself The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, nobody believes it's actually democratic, that's just nominal. Effectively it's a hereditary monarchy.

But also, what the heck is a "Government"? There are all sorts of institutions, formal, informal and semi-formal, ranging up from neighborhood street gangs and cliques, through civil societies, churches and boards of directors right up to formal national governments and transnational entities, all of which "Govern" us in some way.

There are multinational corporations today that have more effective power than medieval empires. Are they "Governments"? In some substantial way I would answer definitely YES!

One term that has been getting a lot of traction in certain circles is "Anarcho-Tyranny", it's not a formal system of government, but rather a lack of it. The formal government may still exist somewhere, in the capital maybe, still sitting in the committee rooms but it isn't here where you live. You are being terrorized by a bunch of punks or just left to rot and starve.

This is a situation (and probably not the only one) where the use of internal political violence is not only permissible but an absolute moral necessity. If the government is not there, then it is necessary to make one.

It doesn't have to be democratic, in fact in the beginning it almost certainly will not be, but it does have to be effective, and that means violent.

Organize whatever gangs, cliques and parishioners are needed to clear the punks from the streets to get the food and water flowing again.

Undemocratic, violent and morally necessary, and it's not a matter of "If" but rather "When".

Expand full comment
Pamela Somerville's avatar

Most concerning is the NZ police standing aside and allowing the violence. Why do they do that?

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts