• 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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

When human rights have been violated, I can see violence being an option ie the Holocaust, etc. Civil rights? No, I do not believe they warrant a violent encounter. Being told you will not be given the same access to something as someone else, etc is something that should be protested, not something to kill another human being over.
 
I voted no because there is a difference between a "protest" and a violent revolution against force. A violent "protest" is never justified. However, a violent revolution could be.
 
MarineTpartier said:
When human rights have been violated, I can see violence being an option ie the Holocaust, etc. Civil rights? No, I do not believe they warrant a violent encounter. Being told you will not be given the same access to something as someone else, etc is something that should be protested, not something to kill another human being over.
Click to expand...

The holocaust doesn't work as an example because then use of violence would be acts of self defense. Violence is justified when it defensive - even if proactively -against assaultive violence.

Did the American Revolution begin as a violent "protest" or violent "revolution?"
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What, in your view, are the elements of modern violent protests that make it improper?
Click to expand...

Typically that it tends to include and promote the looting and destruction of private business and community.
 
ThesisQuasar said:
I had considered elaborating further on that point of consideration, but since you asked, I will.

It heavily depends on a variety of factors and new considerations:

How rigged is the democracy that is present in a given society? Are there any peaceful loop holes that are reliable enough to create positive change? What is the degree of oppression to necessitate violence? What type(s) of oppression are present?

I think that if a democracy is not able to handle or meet the basic necessities of its citizens, Or lacks basic infrastructure for its citizens, Or is actively committing negative actions against innocent citizens (Such as genocide, enforced slavery, etc) then a controlled form of goal-driven violence is justified, just as long as the violence is funneled for the goal of making conditions better. Violence without a goal, or that ultimately does not help towards a goal to justify itself, is both pointless and unethical.

If a democracy prevents people from having basic rights and/or liberties, then the circumstances that would justify goal-driven violence aren't nearly as urgent, given that the prevention of rights isn't preventing someone from meeting their basic needs and necessities. As long as the democracy isn't severely rigged enough to prevent change democratically or through peaceful protest, and the aforementioned, then Violence can be deemed unnecessary. Violence in this second set of circumstances would most-likely almost never have to considered, and should only ever be considered if absolute stagnation is persistent on a permanent basis.
Click to expand...
Okay, I understand your position better now. I think we're pretty much on the same page. Thanks for clarifying the nuances.
 
Perotista said:
I think I buy you two examples, they are good examples. But I am not sure if they are right or wrong. For me I think when violent protests are justified is like defining porn, you know it when you see it. Defining when a violent protest is justified is like knowing porn, you will know when and for what reason when you see it or felt it.

I will add this, the violent protest should be against those whom you have the grievance. Instead of burning and looting ones own businesses and homes, if it is the police burn their stations, not yours. If it is against a government, burn and loot government offices, not yours. This turning down your own places makes no sense. At least to me.
Click to expand...
I think the distinction you make in your latter point is important. Not only is it ethically important to make sure that you only target the people/institutions who have done the harm, it's also important to make that distinction in terms of clarifying your message. In other words, if protesters target business owners in a protest against police, doing so makes their message more confusing whereas only targeting police car/buildings makes the message extremely clear.
 
Redress said:
Using your example, the problem is that in the modern world, I do not think the violent protests would improve the lot of the short elves. If anything, I think the backlash would hurt their own cause.
Click to expand...
What about the modern world makes you think this?
 
jamesrage said:
Do you mean violence as in rioting,looting and destroying privately owned property as in the case with the Ferguson protesters rioters? The **** no that is never ever justified. If you mean attacking government forces as an attempt to overthrow the government then sure that can be justified but I do not see it as a protest turning violent, I see that as a revolt.
Click to expand...
By violence, I meant any sort of physical force on the part of protestors. In any case, I agree with your distinction between attacking government vs. attacking private property.
 
Ikari said:
Typically that it tends to include and promote the looting and destruction of private business and community.
Click to expand...
What if private businesses and communities are complicit in or actively supportive of attacks against human rights?
 
Gaius46 said:
In a society of laws with mechanisms to change said laws violent protest is never justified.
Click to expand...

What if the laws that are being passed start oppressing the people and are not changed? What do the people do?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What if private businesses and communities are complicit in or actively supportive of attacks against human rights?
Click to expand...

Still not enough considering the mobility available to you.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What if the laws that are being passed start oppressing the people and are not changed? What do the people do?
Click to expand...

Change your representation and/or move to a locale that suits your ideals.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I think the distinction you make in your latter point is important. Not only is it ethically important to make sure that you only target the people/institutions who have done the harm, it's also important to make that distinction in terms of clarifying your message. In other words, if protesters target business owners in a protest against police, doing so makes their message more confusing whereas only targeting police car/buildings makes the message extremely clear.
Click to expand...

Exactly. How does burning and looting your own businesses and homes show that the protest is against the police? It makes it seem this violence was conducted to enrich the looters instead of protesting against the police. How else is one to take it? Brown was just an excuse to rob, steal and burn.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What about the modern world makes you think this?
Click to expand...

When has violent protest worked better than other solutions in the last, say, 50 years.

Let's use a real world example, one I have some knowledge of, if somewhat secondhand, gay rights. I have a couple times on this board listed the things my mother went through when she came out, all legal at the time. There was no protection for gays from losing their jobs, their housing, and so on. All that has changed. Do you think violent protest would have accelerated that change, or would it have slowed it down as people coalesced in opposition to the violent tactics used by gay people in the hypothetical? I rather suspect the later.
 
clownboy said:
Still not enough considering the mobility available to you.
Click to expand...
Good point. What if, however, the business has significant state or even federal influence that you can't get away from by moving?
 
clownboy said:
Change your representation and/or move to a locale that suits your ideals.
Click to expand...

What if they are federal laws then and representation is in it together...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What, other than a case being ruled "self defense", was being protested? Vandalism, looting and burning is not a protest - those are criminal acts. Being mad at a "system" does not excuse, in any way, destruction of property of those simply living under that "system" or violence against ordinary people that happen to be employed by that "system".

Calling looters protestors is silly; there were both looters and protestors presented on TV last night but there was no overlap in those groups.
Click to expand...

We agree on that, but it wasn't the point I was making.
 
Redress said:
When has violent protest worked better than other solutions in the last, say, 50 years.
Click to expand...
In 1992, when the police officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted, there were violent protests/riots. Soon after, the same officers were indicted on federal charges. Historically, violence by the public has escalated, if not caused, action by the government because it creates a threatening situation that the government acts to resolve.

Let's use a real world example, one I have some knowledge of, if somewhat secondhand, gay rights. I have a couple times on this board listed the things my mother went through when she came out, all legal at the time. There was no protection for gays from losing their jobs, their housing, and so on. All that has changed. Do you think violent protest would have accelerated that change, or would it have slowed it down as people coalesced in opposition to the violent tactics used by gay people in the hypothetical? I rather suspect the later.
Click to expand...
If the violence was executed in a manner that it could be excused by enough of the population and in a way that created tension to the point that the government felt it had to act, then the violence would have helped. If the violence was not executed in such a manner, then it would have hurt. My issue is that I don't see how the modern world, specifically, reduces the effectiveness of violent protest. I agree that certain conditions must be present in order for violence to be effective, but I don't think that modernity has made violence any less effective than it already was.
 
lizzie said:
Then you go through legal channels. (Did you mean NOT go to war?)
Click to expand...
No, I meant "go to war" aka revolution or civil war. In terms of legal channels, if the legal channels do not work for a sustained period of time, what should protests do next?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, I meant "go to war" aka revolution or civil war. In terms of legal channels, if the legal channels do not work for a sustained period of time, what should protests do next?
Click to expand...

You don't literally go to war, with the purpose of not severing ties, or with the intent of patching things up. War is the most serious human endeavor there is.
 
You don't have the right to riot.

As for the question, in this nation, basically never. Any actual situation where it would be necessary is just too unlikely to bother with. Rioting gets nothing done, it never has in this country. It's the massive, peaceful marches and demonstrations that have made a difference.

At the end of the day, it's just coming out of YOUR taxes and destroying YOUR community -- wholly counterproductive.

TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

At that point, it's just use of force in self defense.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...


store keepers should be able to shoot violent looters.
 
TurtleDude said:
store keepers should be able to shoot violent looters.
Click to expand...

How does one determine the violent looters form the ordinary looters?

I say shoot all looters and sort that out later. ;)
 
The points in which I would believe violence would be legitimately used is the points in which I would no longer consider it a "protest" but rather a revolutionary endevour.

If you are still attempting to function within, and maintain the base institution of society and the government then I can't see any legitimate reason to interject violence into a protest.

If you are attempting to overthrow and replace the base institution of society/government, then I no longer see the action being a mere "protest". There are instances where I would potentially view violence in such an action as justified, but it would be rather narrow in scope and would be a relative last resort type of action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom