• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When is violent protest justified?

When is violent protest justified?


  • Total voters
    56

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.

In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?

Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.
 
Imo, it isn't. If you're going to resort to violence, it had better be because you are willing to go to war, and sever your ties.
There is no "right" to commit violence and destruction against others in society.
 
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.

In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?

Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.

I tend to agree.

But who determines that the violence is appropriate and which force may the government bring to bear on the protesters?
 
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.
 
I said other because if the tables are turned what would be said? Suppose that a store owner "violently protests" being looted/burned out by shooting the looters/arsonists - would that be acceptable? Is that store owner not allowed the basic human right of earning a living and having their personal property (and safety) respected? When the police decide to "stand down", in order to appease the race hustling, poverty pimps, then they are simply begging the otherwise law abiding folks to take matters into their own hands.
 
Imo, it isn't. If you're going to resort to violence, it had better be because you are willing to go to war, and sever your ties.
There is no "right" to commit violence and destruction against others in society.

Yes there is - basic self defense is a right. Your right to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
 
Depends on what you mean as violence. Some hold that property destruction is not violence (I do not hold this view, just sayin). But I say under certain conditions it can be, especially when the police strike you first, or are using overwhelming force such as live round shooting people. But other than that, I think for the most part protestors should stay peaceful, or as peaceful as the conditions call for.
 
Imo, it isn't. If you're going to resort to violence, it had better be because you are willing to go to war, and sever your ties.
There is no "right" to commit violence and destruction against others in society.

It depends on what you mean by 'right'. But there is no doubt that it is quite proper to take up arms against an oppressor., whether he be foreign or domestic. It is in an other context not only admissible but arguably even a duty to take up arms, where a leader is committing atrocities.
 
Yes there is - basic self defense is a right. Your right to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
Self defense isn't violent protest against society. It is defense of self against an individual or group who is trying to harm you.
 
I tend to agree.

But who determines that the violence is appropriate and which force may the government bring to bear on the protesters?
I tentatively suggest that every person and institution is entitled to their own idea of whether violence is appropriate and that, the value of their violence should be measured according to whether or not it helped them reach their goal. In other words, I wonder if the question to ask is "Who won?" rather than "Who should and should not have used force?"
 
It depends on what you mean by 'right'. But there is no doubt that it is quite proper to take up arms against an oppressor., whether he be foreign or domestic. It is in an other context not only admissible but arguably even a duty to take up arms, where a leader is committing atrocities.


The bolded is essentially what I was referring to. Severing ties, and being willing to fight to the death.
 
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.
I agree with that. What do think about a society that does not have mechanisms to change said laws?
 
Depends on what kind of violent protest we're talking about, as well as why.


The "why" had better be mighty good.


The "violence" had better be focused on legitimate targets. Busting up a store to take a plasma TV because Cousin RayRay got shot by the police isn't legit. Burning down businesses owned by people who did you no wrong, is wrong.
 
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.

In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?

Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.

If violence is called for I aint gona be in the street with protesters. There is a time for violence. That time is when you or yours lives are threatened in such manner that it is tantamount to enslavement or death, and the covenant under which we live has been substantially altered to the detriment of my family and myself. That's war time. Violent protest sure, if you call it a protest. When your backs are put against the wall there is only one course of action, as Sun Tzu said, when in death ground, fight.
 
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.

That is probably true, if the laws are enforced and the mechanisms function. But that is not always so clear cut. After all, the kid was shot six times and charges will not be made. And the mechanisms have arguably had plenty of time to work their magic, while Blacks are still certainly not equal in society other than in theory.
 
I said other because if the tables are turned what would be said? Suppose that a store owner "violently protests" being looted/burned out by shooting the looters/arsonists - would that be acceptable? Is that store owner not allowed the basic human right of earning a living and having their personal property (and safety) respected?
Fair question. I think my answer to your points are located in part 2 of my argument in the OP : "When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened." In the case of the store owner, he may call the police or his insurance company to get justice or money to pay for the damage. He may even get money from the public to put his store back together. And, if those do not work - if he has no constructive means of defending his livilhood - then violence may be justified.

When the police decide to "stand down", in order to appease the race hustling, poverty pimps, then they are simply begging the otherwise law abiding folks to take matters into their own hands.
I asked that this sort of anti-intellectual rhetoric not be brought into this thread. Please honor that. Thanks.
 
Self defense isn't violent protest against society. It is defense of self against an individual or group who is trying to harm you.

Vandalism, looting and burning of private structures is violent protest against individuals. Society is simply a collection of individuals - note that the OP did not specify "society" as the target of violent protest since it is not.
 
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.

That provides of course the mechanisms are working in a substantial degree and are accessible in same said degree. If they are working then I agree. If they are not and I face substantial harm from said system, then there is gona be a big problem.
 
Vandalism, looting and burning of private structures is also violent protest against individuals. Society is simply a collection of individuals - note that the OP did not specify "society" as the target of violent protest since it is not.

Well, no it really isn't against individuals. It's blind violent nonsense, not directed at any specific business or individual. If a group spefically focused on Mr Jones Hardware Store, because the owner had caused harm to the group or a member of the group, then your point would be more accurate. What I am referring to, and I believe the op is referring to, is protests such as we saw last night. That is protest, not a case of self-defense.
 
Depends on what you mean as violence. Some hold that property destruction is not violence (I do not hold this view, just sayin). But I say under certain conditions it can be, especially when the police strike you first, or are using overwhelming force such as live round shooting people. But other than that, I think for the most part protestors should stay peaceful, or as peaceful as the conditions call for.
Your conditions for the justification of violent protest are rooted in the presence of imminent threats (e.g. live rounds). Do you think violent protest (including the destruction of property) is ever justified even when an imminent threat is not present? For instance, I believe that even if the police are completely passive, violent protest can be justified if nonviolent protest has not been successful. Would you agree or do you have another perspective on that?
 
Note : While I understand that everyone will respond to this thread through the lens of their experiences, I ask that everyone do their best to put aside any emotions, prejudices or non-intellectual motives that may color how they present their ideas when responding to the thread question and to other posters.

In light of the violent protests in Ferguson as well as the calls for peaceful protests by some Americans, I believe that the question of when violent protest is justified has become a very important one to consider, if not fully answer. Given this importance, I pose the question to the members of DP : When is violent protest justified?

Before you answer the question, I think it's fair for me to do that myself, though I should note that my position on this topic is still developing. In short, I believe that violent protest is justified when two conditions are met : 1. When the human or civil rights of the protesters have been threatened. 2. When all or most nonviolent means of protest have failed to secure the human or civil rights that have been threatened.

I cannot come up with any examples of actual justified violent protests. Not only are the people who are usually hurt in violent protesters usually innocent themselves, but it takes away from the message that those very protesters are trying to get out, which makes it somewhat self-defeating.
 
Violent protest against the State is justified in specific circumstances, such as if the State is becoming tyrannical. Violent protest against innocent bystanders is never, ever justified. What is happening in Ferguson is the very definition of terrorism. People targeting civilians in an attempt to get the State to give in to their demands.
 
Your conditions for the justification of violent protest are rooted in the presence of imminent threats (e.g. live rounds). Do you think violent protest (including the destruction of property) is ever justified even when an imminent threat is not present? For instance, I believe that even if the police are completely passive, violent protest can be justified if nonviolent protest has not been successful. Would you agree or do you have another perspective on that?

Depends on the situation. Depends on what they are protesting.
 
If violence is called for I aint gona be in the street with protesters. There is a time for violence. That time is when you or yours lives are threatened in such manner that it is tantamount to enslavement or death, and the covenant under which we live has been substantially altered to the detriment of my family and myself. That's war time. Violent protest sure, if you call it a protest. When your backs are put against the wall there is only one course of action, as Sun Tzu said, when in death ground, fight.
What conditions, in your opinion, would have to be met to be considered enslavement?
 
I cannot come up with any examples of actual justified violent protests. Not only are the people who are usually hurt in violent protesters usually innocent themselves, but it takes away from the message that those very protesters are trying to get out, which makes it somewhat self-defeating.
In a situation where the message protesters want to send is not acknowledged when they send it peacefully, what would be the next step for protesters, in your opinion?
 
Back
Top Bottom