Does VIOLENCE belong in the liberal toolkit?

[reddread]

I believe the big difference between conservative and liberal values is most simply stated as-
CONSERVATIVE = "WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME?"
LIBERAL = "WHAT'S IN IT FOR EVERYBODY?"

If people are going to die, thats simply not a liberal value.
and there really is no such thing as "neoliberal" anymore than
"libertarian". there arent that many shades between
RIGHT and WRONG.

[Sparhawk60]

1. Then We Lose

Violence is the ultimate decider. If the other side is willing to use violence, and you are not...you lose. This is a unpleasant reality, but reality never the less.

Sparhawk

[reddread]

3. an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye is MAD'ness

a bad strategy for the millions, perhaps BILLIONS of dead people it costs.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. That is an assumption and not necessarily true. First of all violence almost always

creates more problems than it solves as we see in our military involvement in the Middle East. Secondly, concentrating more on creating truly mutually beneficial relationships with nations and cultures is what makes for a true long lasting solution. One of our biggest problems is that there are too many people such as Cheney who make millions benefiting from war to halt the war machine. The war machine must keep turning so people can keep making money. One of the other biggest problems is we don't really care if the other nation really benefits from our relationship. We only really care what we can get from whatever deal we are striking. Between the violence we bring on other nations and the fact that we usually benefit from diplomatic agreements while the other party usually gets the shaft creates a lot of resentment, anger, and ultimately more violence.

[Sparhawk60]

14. It Takes One to Fight

But it takes two for peace. You are correct, the world would be a much better place if violence was replaced with negotiating mutually beneficial relationships with other nations and peoples. Until that day comes, then only violence will stop true evil.

[mythology]

2. And what happens when not using violence results in people dying?

The world isn't nearly good enough that saying you won't use violence means that nobody will.

Violence should be used justly and in a limited fashion, but it is a tool that should be used when needed.

[aikoaiko]

4. Violence for the sake of self-defense or the defenseless is AOK.

[rock]

5. I believe we need to put a fine point on your distinction

Violence to keep the peace is not a contradiction. It is how civilization works. Generally people are not willing to cooperate if they are not forced to. So we have the military forces and the police force. Now aside from that, coercion to gain acceptance of political ideas is Fascism or modern day Conservatism (clearly non-Democratic principles). So now let me add this to your illustration:
CONSERVATIVE = "WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME? AND I'D BETTER GET IT OR ELSE!"
LIBERAL = "WHAT'S IN IT FOR EVERYBODY? AND YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU CHOOSE."

[reddread]

10. I think you are absolutely right

this town is occasionally besieged by gang violence, and you would hope the
law enforcement agency and justice system was up to the task. they certainly
havent been starved like social services, education and other domestic programs,
although jails seemed to have become a problem.

Im sure all I am trying to say is whatever is in place, has failed.
sometimes, spectacularly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. We liberals tend to sugar coat history.

Some research on the early history of the labor movement, for example, is instructive. I recommend the movie Matewan.

History shows that altruism is of limited utility for social change. Personally, I think Malcom X was right.

[Sparhawk60]

15. +1000

The early labor rights was won over a lot of cracked heads and beaten bodies. It isn"t the way I would have liked it, but the 1% were not going to give up with out a fight.

[snooper2]

7. ask the liberals here who still support the pro Rus-Si-A assholes in Ukraine

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. Or ask the liberals here who support our never-ending imperial wars.

[marions ghost]

8. No

Violence is not a smart choice.

[Orsino]

9. A progressive government would be worth defending...

...even with violence.

The arithmetic is terrifying, but failing to defend a government dooms it.

[WhiteAndNerdy]

16. A couple of years ago . . .

I heard someone on MSNBC say something like, "When conservatives are losing, they want to kill someone. When liberals are losing, they want to kill themselves." I thought that summed up the fundamental difference in temperament pretty well.