There is no "justified violence"

Recently, we've had several incidents of where we see people acting violently in order to achieve a political goal, and then on social media, other people applauding the violence as "justified" and good.  These people make statements saying that they have "no tolerance" for hate speech or anti-American thoughts.  In other words, they actually approve of violent acts because in their minds, those acts are appropriate.

The problem is, this is not how democracy works.

Humans have had a difficult problem for a long time; how can a group of people live together and function as a peaceful society when they all have different beliefs, goals, and ways of seeing the world?

Many systems have been tried, but the one that seems to work the best is democracy.  The basic concept is that people within the society agree to be ruled by an elected leader.  They may not agree with everything the leader does or all the laws, but they agree to it, so that everyone is following the same rules and the society functions with a common set of parameters.

It means that Joe may support political party "A", and Jane may support political party "B".  For a few years, political party "A" is in power, then an election happens and party "B" wins and takes power.

While "A" was in power, Jane doesn't riot, destroy buildings, or become an anarchist, she simply accepts that rule of "A", knowing an new election will come.  Then, when party "B" wins the election, Jane is happy.  Joe is not happy, but the same thing happens - he accepts the rule of "B" and the society functions under the new ruling party.

In other words, in a democracy, there is a social contract: your party might be the ruling one, or it might not be; but either way, you accept the ruling party and participate in society.

This is a much better system than being under a dictatorship, where you have no say and no hope of changing anything, as there is never going to be another election in which you have the chance to vote your party of choice back into power.

But this social contract is one of the cores of democracy - it means that we discuss things, we have open debates, and people can express their opinion.  No opinion is "bad", it's simply a different point of view, and no person in a democracy should face any sort of violence from someone who disagrees with them.

Violence is not a part of democracy; if anything, it is the enemy of democracy.  Once a person or group of people decide that they are not going to follow the social contract, and instead, will act violently to get what they want, they are not being democratic.  Democracy is not about the forceful subjugation of people to follow your way of thinking -  it is about accept everyone's opinions, ideas, and right to express themselves.  And you do not have a right to be violent in a democratic society; just the opposite; if you want to act violently, you are the villan.

Democracy is peaceful; it uses respectful and (often heated) discussion to make decisions about how to run the society.  Yes, it can be frustrating and hard at times, but the core of democracy is that everyone has a voice and a right to be heard, and that no one should use violent means to achieve their goals.

It is very ironic that many of these people who are applauding the recent violent acts are doing so because they call their victims "haters" or Nazis.  Let's look at that in detail for a moment.

The NSDAP was formed in a democratic society; initially, they were just a political party like any other party.  However, they believed in using violence to get what they wanted.  They caused fights, they attacked their opponents physically, and they justified it by saying that they were "right"; that their cause was "good" and so the violence was called for.  Many ex-Nazis were interviewed and they sincerely believed that there was a Jewish conspiracy against them.  They were completely wrong, but they truly believed in what they were fighting for; so much so, that they accepted that violence was necessary.

The question is: what is the difference between these people praising the violent acts and the Nazis?

• Both of them support the un-democratic concepts of using violence to acheive political goals.
• Both of them have a cause that they believe is "good".
• Both of them reject the normal democratic process to achieve their goal and prefer to be violent to achieve their goal.

In other words, if you support the use of "justified violence", YOU are the Nazi.

Also, consider this: the Nazis were wrong in their belief that the Jews were conspiring against them.  What if your motive for violence is also wrong?  Can you honestly say that if society followed your rules, that it would be better world for everyone?  If so, form a political party, get voted into office, and make those changes.

But until then, understand that the majority of us, who support democracy and freedom, are going to be against you.  There is absolutely no reason to support or encourage violence in a free and democratic society.

Imagine for a moment that more of us were violent.  Each person physically attacked other people who didn't agree with them on religion, politics, the way to raise kids, etc.   What kind of society would we have?

We wouldn't.  There would be no society, just anarchy.  Why?  Because people have many different opinions about everything.  So how is it possible that a person who supports political party "A" can live next door another person who supports political party "B"?  And that person's neighbour has an entire different party?

This is the beauty of democracy.  The individuals in the democracy have a common understanding that yes, they may disagree on religion, politics, etc - but the value of being free, of being able to say, think, and do whatever a person wants - is more important.  Hence, we tolerate each other's differences in religion, politics, etc - because we as a whole want our society to be free.

And that's actually what makes it work.  Because each person is free to live their own lives, they feel free, they aren't oppressed, and so they support the social contract that enables that freedom.  Thus, three people living side-by-side can belong to three different religions, and yet live in peace.

This is why democracy works.  And this is also why we do not get violent over disagreements on politics.  As stated before, violence is the enemy of democratic society. 

But, you say, what about hate speech?  What about those people who are truly evil?

If history has shown us anything, it's that those types of people: a) are in very, very small minority, and b) are generally just ignored and go about living their lives miserable and filled with anger, but doing no harm to society.

This is how democracy deals with radicals: it just ignores them.  They are the very small minority of the population and they have zero chance against the majority of the people who support freedom for all.

One of the key tenants of democracy is free speech: the idea that everyone is free to persue their own lives and live the way they want to, and that each of us supports and fights for those rights for all of us.  This was summarized well years ago in the quote:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That is the essense of freedom.  It is not "I will fight against you until you follow what I say."

So when you take violent actions, or even support "justified" violence, you are in the wrong.  Don't be surprised when we, the majority, who support freedom and democracy, come down on you hard for it.  There is nothing "justified" about violence in a democratic and free society.

LKvi