Quercus wrote:How about this: replace "violence" in (a), with "violence which does not protect others from violence". The whole jist of my position is that violence becomes justified when it acts to protect others from violence (now or in the future), and non-violent action would not be sufficient for that task. Being violent to those effecting such "protection through violence" would not be justified, because the consequence of that would be to protect people less, not more.
My problem with this is similar to ObsessoMom's. Basically, who decides when others are in danger of violence and needs to be protected? This kind of rule has the same feeling as all those "stand your ground" laws that make it okay to murder someone if you feel threatened by them. And then it turns out the killer basically only felt threatened by their victim because they were black.
Maybe it's worth drawing out a bit of spectrum here - I'm curious at what point people feel violence is justified:
Situation 1: A white nationalist is actively chasing down and beating someone.
Situation 2: A person is meeting with others to plan violence in the name of white nationalism.
Situation 3: A person is meeting with others to stage a public white nationalist demonstration, planned to be peaceful, but which realistically could turn violent when counter-protesters show up.
Situation 4: A person organizes a private white nationalist rally in which they espouse their views.
Situation 5: A person is handing out flyers advertising the rally from 4).
Situation 6: A person with no previous connection to white nationalism shows up at the rally from 4) to see what white nationalism is all about.
Situation 7: A 5-year-old child of white nationalists is almost certainly going to grow up to be a white nationalist because of the culture they are being raised in.
I think we can all agree that violence is justified against the person in Situation 1, and isn't against the person in Situation 7. The disagreement seems to be where the cut-off is in between. The "violence which does not protect others from violence" rule feels so ambiguous that I can see arguments that it doesn't apply past situation 2 as well as arguments that it applies in situation 7.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!