[Rperry2174]

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

[Lord-Jobo]

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.

[kcplate]

> 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.

[antisol]

  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.

[thrance]

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.

[lukan]

"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.

[direwolf20]

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.