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".
Always happy to discuss philosophy - even happy to go philosophy major to philosophy major 😇 I didn't say "violence can only be justified if the Government is non-democratic and repressive", so that confuses me a bit. Overall, with definitions in op-eds, I will rarely go into a deep definition of terms, preferring what is generally accepted/understood by readers. As you will appreciate with your own background, if I were to define each contested term, this article might be ten times longer ... at least!
Yes, I did mess up that part and later realized I had jammed up David Farra's comment of your piece over at Kiwiblog with your own ideas. Perhaps if you have time, you could go over there and check out the comments.
Perhaps if you have even more time you could do a deep dive into the position violence has in government and society.
Here is one little piece of old-time history that has intrigued me, from Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur.
“Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil, is rightwise king born of all England.”
The 1963 Disney movie "The Sword in the Stone" based on the 1938 T. H. White book of the same name has it as a literal sword, stone and anvil, but it makes much more sense as a social and technological symbol.
The true King must draw out the iron from the stone (iron ore) forge it on the anvil to make a sword. A political order based on superior weapons. Later there is Excalibur given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake. A different sword perhaps, but the same symbol.
This is what Denis the "Constitutional Peasant" chides Arthur about in the 1975 movie "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" he claims that supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
So that is political power based on superior force verses a mandate from the people.
How about that for a philosophical steak to chew on and digest?
Not just the Albert Park event, but others. I also think of the arrest of Lucy Rogers for simply standing quietly with a sign during a pro-Hamas protest (and not those protesting and prone to violence)
They are so obviously anti free speech but also confirming the majority of protesters over a lone woman with a A4 bit of paper. They arrested Lucy so she wouldn't upset the mob.
Why did the police do that? Why aren't the police protecting individual rights?
Why are the police so unrepentant after Albert Park? What is going to change?
I was told that one reason police do that is because it is easy and expedient. They did it to Sean Plunket at the recent conference in Wellington. I notice they have a transgender cop who led the police response at Albert park with Posie and co. The violent mob should have been charged with a HATE crime that day, but not with a trans cop in charge.
It troubles me there are protests in support of Palestine, a group who are actively controlled by Hamas and where they (obviously) draw their militia from. The savagery of the October 7 raid on Israel is therefore condoned by the global group protesting.
So the question must be asked how could the people of the West support a Hamas controlled Palestine?
I think the answer is contained within the algorithms of social media - "if it's free then the consumers are the product". We know these algorithms have been perfected to target the placement of products and services; so it's reasonable to expect they are also being used to shape opinions and co-ordinate actions.
I hasten to add I'm not a conspiracy theorist - so please let me explain my logic.
Humans have a deeply embedded herd instinct and the simple act of reading and liking something draws more of the same. It doesn't take very long before our young and impressionable (or gullible) believe this is a movement and join the bandwagon... for as long as the wheels continue to keep rolling; or another one comes along.
The camp followers are the so-called "journalists" and others whose livelihood depends on clicks and likes. The tail-enders are the pollsters and politicians desperate to retain power or relevance.
Breaking out of these unholy cycles requires strong leadership and better strategies designed to shape the narratives instead of following them. Now is the time more than ever to stop supporting those who would try to influence your vote with a short term sugar hit, and instead look beyond to those who have the vision and ability to carry it out - regardless of how unpopular this may be.
In other words start thinking about your legacy. How are you contributing in the way of societal support for the future of your grandchildren?
"how could the people of the West support a Hamas controlled Palestine?"
Why did the government of Israel support Hamas controlled Gaza? And how can the government of Israel publicly condemn and attack people for doing openly what it did secretly?
Before we go any further you might want to take a look at these Israeli media reports;
Former Mossad Chief admits to government funding for Hamas via Qatar, calls policy a mistake
The first is The Jerusalem Post interviewing former Mossad Director Yossi Cohen in which he admits that he, along with the IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, transferred government funds to Hamas via Qatar and that the policy was secret until it was exposed by the press.
The second article is earlier, it comes from last year, just after the Hamas Oct. 7th attacks and covers it from a political angle. Many sources claim that they spoke with both Benjamin Netanyahu and Bezalel Smotrich who said it was their policy, not to create an independent Palestinian state, but rather to make such a state impossible. How ever at that time The Times of Israel still have the story as Qatari cash being transferred with tacit government approval, not as Yossi Cohen later admitted, Israeli government cash being secretly transferred via Qatar.
This is a conspiracy, but it is not a conspiracy theory. It has been confirmed by multiple independent sources including from people who were directly involved.
The Israeli policies towards the Palestinians have been criminal. immoral and very, very stupid and they have been going on for years. The chances that these people are actually going to be prosecuted for their crimes (and these are crimes, even by Israeli law) is practically zero, that would be the Israeli government prosecuting Israeli government officials for carrying out Israeli government policies. How does that happen?
Justice however cannot be long delayed.
" But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream"
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".
Always happy to discuss philosophy - even happy to go philosophy major to philosophy major 😇 I didn't say "violence can only be justified if the Government is non-democratic and repressive", so that confuses me a bit. Overall, with definitions in op-eds, I will rarely go into a deep definition of terms, preferring what is generally accepted/understood by readers. As you will appreciate with your own background, if I were to define each contested term, this article might be ten times longer ... at least!
Yes, I did mess up that part and later realized I had jammed up David Farra's comment of your piece over at Kiwiblog with your own ideas. Perhaps if you have time, you could go over there and check out the comments.
Perhaps if you have even more time you could do a deep dive into the position violence has in government and society.
Here is one little piece of old-time history that has intrigued me, from Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur.
“Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil, is rightwise king born of all England.”
The 1963 Disney movie "The Sword in the Stone" based on the 1938 T. H. White book of the same name has it as a literal sword, stone and anvil, but it makes much more sense as a social and technological symbol.
The true King must draw out the iron from the stone (iron ore) forge it on the anvil to make a sword. A political order based on superior weapons. Later there is Excalibur given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake. A different sword perhaps, but the same symbol.
This is what Denis the "Constitutional Peasant" chides Arthur about in the 1975 movie "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" he claims that supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
So that is political power based on superior force verses a mandate from the people.
How about that for a philosophical steak to chew on and digest?
Most concerning is the NZ police standing aside and allowing the violence. Why do they do that?
Not just the Albert Park event, but others. I also think of the arrest of Lucy Rogers for simply standing quietly with a sign during a pro-Hamas protest (and not those protesting and prone to violence)
Yes, but why are the NZ police doing that?
They are so obviously anti free speech but also confirming the majority of protesters over a lone woman with a A4 bit of paper. They arrested Lucy so she wouldn't upset the mob.
Why did the police do that? Why aren't the police protecting individual rights?
Why are the police so unrepentant after Albert Park? What is going to change?
I was told that one reason police do that is because it is easy and expedient. They did it to Sean Plunket at the recent conference in Wellington. I notice they have a transgender cop who led the police response at Albert park with Posie and co. The violent mob should have been charged with a HATE crime that day, but not with a trans cop in charge.
It troubles me there are protests in support of Palestine, a group who are actively controlled by Hamas and where they (obviously) draw their militia from. The savagery of the October 7 raid on Israel is therefore condoned by the global group protesting.
So the question must be asked how could the people of the West support a Hamas controlled Palestine?
I think the answer is contained within the algorithms of social media - "if it's free then the consumers are the product". We know these algorithms have been perfected to target the placement of products and services; so it's reasonable to expect they are also being used to shape opinions and co-ordinate actions.
I hasten to add I'm not a conspiracy theorist - so please let me explain my logic.
Humans have a deeply embedded herd instinct and the simple act of reading and liking something draws more of the same. It doesn't take very long before our young and impressionable (or gullible) believe this is a movement and join the bandwagon... for as long as the wheels continue to keep rolling; or another one comes along.
The camp followers are the so-called "journalists" and others whose livelihood depends on clicks and likes. The tail-enders are the pollsters and politicians desperate to retain power or relevance.
Breaking out of these unholy cycles requires strong leadership and better strategies designed to shape the narratives instead of following them. Now is the time more than ever to stop supporting those who would try to influence your vote with a short term sugar hit, and instead look beyond to those who have the vision and ability to carry it out - regardless of how unpopular this may be.
In other words start thinking about your legacy. How are you contributing in the way of societal support for the future of your grandchildren?
Isnt this really just a plague of virtue signalling ? Those protesters probably couldnt find Palestine on a world map.
Is virtue signaling, but has moved from statements to violence. We have seen this in history before ...
I totally agree. But the worrying bit is the sheer number of people signalling they are useful idiots.
"how could the people of the West support a Hamas controlled Palestine?"
Why did the government of Israel support Hamas controlled Gaza? And how can the government of Israel publicly condemn and attack people for doing openly what it did secretly?
Before we go any further you might want to take a look at these Israeli media reports;
Former Mossad Chief admits to government funding for Hamas via Qatar, calls policy a mistake
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-799792
For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
The first is The Jerusalem Post interviewing former Mossad Director Yossi Cohen in which he admits that he, along with the IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, transferred government funds to Hamas via Qatar and that the policy was secret until it was exposed by the press.
The second article is earlier, it comes from last year, just after the Hamas Oct. 7th attacks and covers it from a political angle. Many sources claim that they spoke with both Benjamin Netanyahu and Bezalel Smotrich who said it was their policy, not to create an independent Palestinian state, but rather to make such a state impossible. How ever at that time The Times of Israel still have the story as Qatari cash being transferred with tacit government approval, not as Yossi Cohen later admitted, Israeli government cash being secretly transferred via Qatar.
This is a conspiracy, but it is not a conspiracy theory. It has been confirmed by multiple independent sources including from people who were directly involved.
The Israeli policies towards the Palestinians have been criminal. immoral and very, very stupid and they have been going on for years. The chances that these people are actually going to be prosecuted for their crimes (and these are crimes, even by Israeli law) is practically zero, that would be the Israeli government prosecuting Israeli government officials for carrying out Israeli government policies. How does that happen?
Justice however cannot be long delayed.
" But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream"
Amos 5:24 KJV