What our Forefathers understood

[Trial153]

http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/

[sits in trees]

These right wing rags that advocate violence(even thought the authors would never have any part in it) should be banned.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

These right wing rags that advocate violence(even thought the authors would never have any part in it) should be banned.

Did you read the article?

[virgil]

Culver, do you agree with that article?  It seems to imply that, without the threat of violence, humans are incapable of following any form of rules, laws, or moral code of conduct. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Culver, do you agree with that article?  It seems to imply that, without the threat of violence, humans are incapable of following any form of rules, laws, or moral code of conduct. 

It appears to be a bit out of context, almost as if there are previous articles from the author. I understand what he is saying and I do agree in general. I read the article a bit differently than you did. Let me edit your comment.

 

It seems to imply that, it is historically proven that without the threat of violence,  some humans are incapable of following any form of rules, laws, or moral code of conduct. Without ALL humans voluntarily following ALL rules, laws, or moral code of conduct, There will always be a need for a threat of violence, whether on an individual one on one confrontation or on a national level. (I would say this has also been historically proven).

Edited March 19, 2014 by Culvercreek hunt club

[virgil]

The changes that you made are reasonable- but, I think that you're assuming that the author woudl agree.  I don't agree that that was the author's intent.

 

I don't agree that it's the threat of violence that keeps most of us from committing crimes.  I'd like to think that it's more a sense of right vs. wrong, as well as a fear of consequences.  The author seems to be using 'violence' and 'consequences' interchangeably.

[Doc]

Every law is backed up with the promise of eventual force (violence) somewhere along the chain of reactions if not obeyed. Our entire society is built on that precept. If you act in a lawless fashion, somewhere along the legal reactions, someone will visit violence on you to force you to comply, or to take you out of society where you will be controlled. It's not a wonderful thought when you live in a society that celebrates independence and personal freedoms, but it is a fact of civilized living within the organization of a society. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where life would be if there was no threat of violent reaction to law breaking. All it takes is a 5 minute glance at the local news to understand that there are people in our society that need control and that control often requires some level of violent response to have any effect at all.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I agree the threat of violence isn't required for the majority of people today, but there is a small minority that do require it. I can say this in confidence since there are still those that choose to ignore the threat of violence to act in an unlawful manner. I think it is a safe assumption that there are those on the fence between not being dissuaded by the threat and not needing the threat. These fence sitters are the ones that the laws are most likely to prevent from acting outside the laws it the violent threat was not there. The author made a good point about this when you see the increase in violent activity in mass destruction scenarios. Think what happened after Katrina.  

 

The author does use violence where most of us would use the term consequences, But I still can understand his logic. Actually our legal consequences are on an escalating scale. (he tried to explain this). at any step in an illegal activity there are actions by those hired by us to be violent for us. (police, military). at any point we can choose to stop our action and that would likely be because of the immanent threat that is there. As the illegal activity increase so does the likelihood of the use of the actual violence. If it increases further the violence actually increases. The person robs a store at gun point.  As he leaves the police show up. does he quit and give up because he has an epiphany and is suddenly of the mindset to not break the law?  Or is it because he is now facing a threat of violence greater than the one he possesses? If he stops and gives up the threat of violence is enough. if he does not the violence we have hired the police to threaten with is utilized to neutralize the violence of this robber.

 

Interesting topic.

[ants]

Culver, do you agree with that article?  It seems to imply that, without the threat of violence, humans are incapable of following any form of rules, laws, or moral code of conduct. 

unfortunately enough humans are incapable or following any form of rules, laws or moral code of conduct. Certainly not all humans, but enough. If a criminal is intent on robbing someone and he has the choice of robbing a 6'-5" 280lb guy or a frail 100lb. elderly woman….who do you think he would choose? Probably the one who could inflict the least amount of "violence" on him. If a criminal intends on burglarizing a home, and knows that the owners of one home are armed with a firearm but the owners of the house down the street are not…which home  do you think he will choose??? We live in a world where violence is a definite deterrent. Always has been.

[philoshop]

A very interesting topic!

It's not confined to criminal behavior. How about the slacker at work? The guy who doesn't pull his oar so that everyone else has to take up that slack. Non-workers are no longer threatened with beatings because we're civilized, but unless you work for the government, the threat of losing your job is very similar in many ways to the threat of violence.

 

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

 

[nyantler]

he

Culver, do you agree with that article?  It seems to imply that, without the threat of violence, humans are incapable of following any form of rules, laws, or moral code of conduct. 

That is exactly what it implies and it is 100% correct... not because all humans are incapable of following rules. laws, and moral code... but because some humans are incapable. If the leaders of good don't use the threat of violence to keep and protect the peace... the lawless will use violence to take control and create anarchy. The challenge is determining who is the good and who is the bad... that my friend has been the age old challenge. The human condition will never allows for absolute peace among people.

 

The Marine corp is a good example of using the threat of violence or discipline to produce positive results. Sometimes cracking even the toughest nut and turning him into a soldier that can depend on his brother while his brother can depend on him.

Edited March 20, 2014 by nyantler

[Trial153]

The thing I find hardest to believe is that it needed to be written and the any rational adult doesn't understand it.

I posted it because of the recent attacks on the 2nd amendment, in NY and other states as well. We are losing what forefathers understood and because of their understanding they laid the 2nd amendment as as one of the corner stones to our constitution.

Look how far we have fallen.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Trial153

[Mr VJP]

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf,”

George Orwell

Another article from Jack that explains how violence is being used against us by people who claim to be progressive and passive.

http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/12/police-state-progressives/

[philoshop]

While I agree with a great deal of what Jack Donovan says, a sticking point for me is and has been his lack of acknowledgement of the 'cyclical' nature of some of the most basic problems that plague the world today. History will repeat itself if left in an unchecked state.

I posted this a while back and a handful here clicked on it, with no response. It's a very basic introduction to the forms of government that we have in existence today, and their cyclical tendencies. It's well worth the 10 minutes, and makes you think about where we've been and where we are today, and where we're headed. Not just the U.S., but the world.

http://huntingny.com/forums/topic/21383-a-10-minute-video-government-101/