[chomskyole]

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence.

It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence.

Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?

How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the decision is about the price for a certain treatment and you are balancing profit expectations from investors. Is this an act of violence? I'd imagine that the outcome of deaths could probably estimated quite reliably in this instance. And you would need to justify the various salaries and profits along the way and weighing it up against the number of people suffering. Does this sound violent to you?

EDIT: And I'm particularly keen to hear from the downvoters about this. Always keen on good arguments. Thanks :)

[BoxFour]

> I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence.

Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force. If you mean that certain acts are just as morally contemptible as violence, or equally likely to cause harm, just say that directly.

Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.

[chomskyole]

> Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force.

It absolutely doesn't. Historically we judged laws as violent. Germany stands as an example.

> Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.

Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think?

EDIT: for instance paying someone to do physical harm. How would you assess this?

[moomin]

So why is physical force so important here? If I poison someone, they’re just as dead as if I’d stuck a knife in them.

[vouaobrasil]

> We don't like violence.

Why not? Violence is a tool like any other, and our entire western society is predicated on it. We are cogs in a corporate-run state and if we don't like it, there is the police force. If we get evicted, the police is there to tell us to stop sleeping on the bench. If we don't listen, they have the guns. The underlying systemic violence of our society is rampant.

Personally, while I neither like nor dislike violence, it can be a useful tool in revolutions where the state has become incompatible with the needs of the majority.

[chomskyole]

I agree with your overall assessment.

The narrative is that we decide on rational reasons (which doesn't excludes violence as such) mixed with a moral superiority (which excludes violence).

I think saying that we don't like violence is just sharing the moral common sentiment and hoping that it leads to some understanding/highlighting of the contradictions. The reality is that people will fight for life when you push them. What is "violent" is generally defined by those who are more powerful I'd say.

[glimshe]

Letting somoene die to make more money is violence. But letting a hospital go bankrupt, which will eventually lead to others dying, would be no better.

We still struggle with the life and death decisions related to allocating capital do healthcare. Even single payer systems have this problem.

We can start by looking at what profit margins and administrative expenses are reasonable for health businesses. The free market generally solves these questiins, but it's notoriously deficient when it comes to healthcare.

Then we can find out how to best allocate the remaining money to maximize health outcomes while ensuring that the businesses are sustainable.

[chomskyole]

> The free market generally solves these questiins, but it's notoriously deficient when it comes to healthcare.

Can you please elaborate on this part? I don't see how this could be solved by market forces.

EDIT: Making healthcare for profit, would always put someone's life against someone else's new yacht. Is this how we want to assess these situations?

[bloqs]

Its not violence. There may me a missing word to describe reputation and livlihood destruction

[vouaobrasil]

There is no sane reason to restrict violence to the immediate physical. If you destroy someone's livelihood, e.g. by forcing them into bankruptcy, they will have to leave their home and give up their assets. What if they don't? They must because there is a threat of force behind the act.

Destroying someone's livelihood is nothing else than asking someone to give up the resources they collected over time under the threat of force: if they refuse, they will have the police to talk to.

And if they do not listen to the police, the police have guns.

That is violence.

[chomskyole]

Why do you think it is not violence?

[vouaobrasil]

> That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?

Of course it is. This topic has already been covered ad nauseum by philosophers and social critics, e.g. Slavoj Zizek, Mark Boyle, etc.

[chomskyole]

Sure. I'm fairly certain you can find discussions going back millennia on this. Just still feel it hasn't landed. Somehow we still disguise certain types of violence...