Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to.

In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were for those fighting for civil rights.

You may still personally choose non-violence in this case, but I'd bet you would understand/sympathize/maybe-even-join those who decided to break into their apartments by force and grab the things that are rightfully theirs.

nobody is secretly violent ... just normal peaceful channels stoped working.

Recognizing that distinction isn't justifying violence its just explaining why nonviolence provides leverage in the first place

And those mechanisms, the military, the police, and the legal system, rely on violence as the ultimate fallback when other options fail. So you may not be relying on violence to solve your problems, or the threat of violence, or the insinuation of it, but instead relying on the threat of someone ELSE’S violence. That is the social contract pretty fundamentally. And when people can no longer rely on those figures who are supposed to use violence on their behalf, we shouldn’t be surprised that they attempt to reclaim the ability to use force. The social contract has been voided, in their eyes. The premise and promise broken.

"Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say its not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to.

In that situation saying "i resolve problems non-violently every day" stops being relevenat. The mechanisms that allow you to do so (enforcement, law, etc) have been removed as they were for those fighting for civil rights.

You may still personally choose non-violence in this case, but I'd bet you would understand/sympathize/maybe-even-join those who decided to break into their apartments by force and grab the things that are rightfully theirs."

I would say it depends. Are there depts of rent involved in that scenario? Did the locking out just happened out of the blue, or was it communicated before, that it would happen?

Apart from that, I surely see more easy examples of justifying violence - for example to stop other violence.

> Let's say you live in an apartment building and your landlord locks you out and keeps you belongings. Police say it’s not their problem. Courts decide that they don't aare either. So now you have no recourse or body to complain to.

If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”. If the reason that your property was seized is because you chose to not pay your rent, then I am not sure understanding, sympathy, or joining in violence would be an appropriate response.

  If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”

Yeah, like maybe you didn't have $50,000 to appeal a bad decision made because a magistrate couldn't be bothered actually reading the evidence in front of them.

If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal much easier than people sympathetic to the violence.

ok, I happen to be looking for exactly that right now. Why don't you find me one.

Well you know…If you are having trouble, you might consider that as a referendum on just how strong your case actually is.

Good luck

This response is offensive in its ignorance

You know, it was you that decided to drag your personal situation into the conversation, not me. Be offended, or not—I’m indifferent.

You know, I look forward to the day this unjust system that you blindly and stupidly trust bites you, too.

And if that day comes I still won’t resort to violence…or even consider it.

Good luck.

When exactly did I say that I would resort to violence, or considered violence, or advocate for it, or suggest it?

You are commenting about legal avenues not going your way on a thread literally about the concept of a violent response being justified for people when normal legal avenues don’t go your way.

Well I mean that's nice for you but I'm not sure how it responds to the question asked - when did I say anything about violence being justified? I merely responded to your ignorant and empirically incorrect fantasy-world assumption that the legal system is always right.

At no point did I say the legal system is always right. I suggested that in certain situations it might be right and in those situations resorting to violence because you feel aggrieved at a legal loss would not be an appropriate response. Frankly, some people are guilty and some people are legally responsible.

I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that. I stand by that. You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.

  > At no point did I say the legal system is always right

First you made the incorrect assumption that we live in a disney-style fantasy world with "If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a 'why'."

Then you made the totally unwarranted assumption that "If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal"

  > I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that

No, you made an assumption based on zero information and chose to incorrectly insinuate that the case is not just.

  > You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.

But "evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds" doesn't actually have anything to do with the case being just, does it? There's a million possible explanations why someone might choose not to donate their time for free. Like for example "I'm aware of just how corrupt this system is based on my previous experiences and so I choose not to waste my time and energy on this".

It’s remarkable how much you have personalized what started as a conceptual conversation.

Good luck resolving whatever it is you are dealing with either legally or by finding a way to cope with the outcome, just or not.

And it's almost impressive, in a sad way, how indifferent you are to everyone else on the planet, and how prima-facie ridiculous your fantasy world assumptions are when given more than two seconds thought. But I'm not here for that sort of "discussion".

Unfortunately however since you have no response to any of the points I actually made, I'll just have to say that I hope you run into someone just as horrible when the corrupt system chews you up and spits you out too.

You criticize my “indifference” and then in the next breath hope for some sort of sadistic vengeance on me.

With virtues like that, I think your opinion of what is just or not should be viewed with suspicion (and I do). Your condemnation is meaningless.

"sadistic vengeance"? I don't know what you're talking about - you yourself claim that you're merely "indifferent". If you're not being a condescending ass, then how is what I wished for "sadistic"? I think you just your entire premise.

> sadistic vengeance"? I don't know what you're talking about

A couple of quotes from your comments above…I added the emphasis that highlights your sadism and vengeance:

“You know, I look forward to the day this unjust system that you blindly and stupidly trust bites you, too”

“I'll just have to say that I hope you run into someone just as horrible when the corrupt system chews you up and spits you out too.”

If you want to claim ignorance about what you wrote, fine. But it’s here for all to see. With every word you post I become more and more convinced that your perception of justice is tilted outside societal norms.

I'm indifferent to your opinions on justice.

Fraudsters usually don't resort to violence once they get caught. In your contrived example, the guy would probably end up paying what he owed and that would be that. Violence mostly emerges from people who feel that they are treated unfairly, and can't use civil channels to solve their issues. Which is why it's important to build a society that treats people fairly.

> Which is why it's important to build a society that treats people fairly.

Who gets to measure that though? I don’t think we can assume that the presence of violence automatically indicates that society isn’t fair.

> I don’t think we can assume that the presence of violence automatically indicates that society isn’t fair.

I think it does, actually. The more unequal the country, the more violent it is. Which is why the best way to get rid of crime is not to give unlimited funding to the police (that has been shown to be very ineffective, and ruinous), it's to make sure no one needs to commit it. That will never get rid of all crimes, of course.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-star...

This happened to me. Police did nothing. I was informed I had the legal right to break the door down to get my belongings. I did so.

The only reason a scummy landlord doesn't enact violence against you for money is that he can expect violence against him in return. So it supports the claim. Nonviolence can only happen when backed up by the possibility of violence.

I think the specific condition here is "change that someone else is willing to prevent using violence". I guess that is not present too often during everyday life.

Everyday you're not trying to achieve political change.

And a lot of those interactions are backed by implied violence: people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

... I genuinely can't fathom what it's like to live in a developed country and yet have such little social trust.

You really imagine that when others are in line at a checkout, they have the intrusive thought "I could just bolt and not pay, but I see a security guard so I better stay in line"? You really have that thought yourself?

Of course people have agreed on the price. That's why you don't see anyone trying to negotiate the price, even though they would be perfectly within their rights to try. And it's why you do see people comparison-shop.

If you break the law, what happens to you? What does the state do to you?

Like say you persistently just refuse to pay a parking ticket after court orders to do so?

I understand that. It is not relevant, and does not establish your original point.

You're missing the point -- I don't refuse to pay a parking ticket after the court orders me to do so. I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying. I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment. I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.

> I don't threaten people on the sidewalk and take their money when I notice there aren't any police around at the moment.

What do you think happens to people who do that though?

You keep telling me what you don't do and how it proves you're implicitly non violent but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach.

Implying violence is never necessary while repeatedly describing not doing violence even if the state's violence distributing apparatus isn't currently present rather undermines the case.

> but you can't even imagine framing that response in terms that don't include representatives of the state's monopoly on violence being within arms reach.

This is not an accurate representation of GP:

> I don't stand in the checkout line trying to figure out how to run out without paying.... I trust that the vast, vast majority of people act similarly. If they didn't, no amount of law enforcement would be enough.

The OP is presenting a stupidly simplistic model of the problem, as though their regular middle class life ably answers the question of the role or threat of violence when demanding political change.

In a world they note of police, military and security guards, they're acting like whether this might have a reason is determined solely by whether people are planning to steal from a supermarket or not...while they're not poverty stricken or hungry, to boot.

Arguing "I simply obey all the laws" is real easy to do from a position of privilege.

Violence is never the answer is easy to say when it's not happening to you. Its also easy to say while you stand by as violence is done to others.

> Arguing "I simply obey all the laws" is real easy to do from a position of privilege.

Poor Americans simply do not live in the Les Miserables world.

> Violence is never the answer is easy to say when it's not happening to you. Its also easy to say while you stand by as violence is done to others.

What violence are you even referring to?

Why don't you? It's because violence will happen to you if you do. Nonviolence, backed by threats of violence.

> people paying for things at stores is not because everyone has actually agreed on the price.

Yes it is. If a normal commodity item such as bottle of milk was outrageous overpriced in a particular store. I would just go to another store.

As for whether I would pay for something without the threat of violence. I do so everyday. I've walked out of stores by mistake with an item I haven't paid for and gone back into the store and paid for it. I don't like my things being stolen, and thus I don't steal other people's things.

I pay for my eggs from a farm and it is a honour system.

I've listened to a lot of Malcolm X. He was a better speaker IMO, his rhetoric was better. I believe he had a more accurate understanding of the reality of how power really works. It has nothing to do with wanting to justifying violence, Malcolm X made a number of matter of fact observations.

> MLK didn’t have support because people were afraid of the alternative. They supported him because they agreed with him message.

You sound like you've never heard of political triangulation before.

You sound like you think everyone in the world is a political science major… they’re not. They don’t think like this.

I'm pretty sure Dr. King & Malcolm X did.