[stickfigure]

This seems to only have a good track record in places with a democratic tradition. Some dictators have figured out you can just imprison and kill the opposition, and keep doing this until there is no more opposition.

The Khomeini government is not going to just say "oh, you're right" and change. Neither will the Kim or Putin governments. Sometimes - sadly - violence is the least worst answer.

[martin-t]

Don't say sadly. Don't further the indoctrination that violence is bad.

It is a tool, it cannot be good or bad. States are the most prolific users of violence (even more when you also count potential/threatened, not yet materialized). Anyone who wants to claim that violence is bad has to oppose the existence of states.

Violence is risky, dangerous, unpredictable, costly, etc. But those are practical and legal, not moral, concerns.

Violence is also necessary, as you say, against governments or other actors which cannot be deterred, stopped or punished using other means.

Violence is also most effective when it's certain and overwhelming/indefensible. If we lived in a world where dictators and their flying monkeys get regularly shot or droned to death, we wouldn't have dictators. Not because they'd all end up dead but because nobody would dare try becoming or supporting one.

This is why we have to publicly support _proportional_ punishment of dictators and their supporters, both now and after they've been removed from power. Good people have to use the same tools as bad ones (after all, they are just tools, not good or bad).

[JumpCrisscross]

> Don't say sadly...It is a tool, it cannot be good or bad

It's not just a tool, it's also a human action. An action that exacts consequences on its victim and its wielder. Necessary and regrettable aren't exclusive.

[don_esteban]

Violence is a sometimes necessary tool.

The problem is that it is routinely misused (especially by those who have overwhelming power), and the cases where it is really needed are really, really, really rare.

Even in cases when it appears that the use of violence is justified, the long term consequences (e.g. on culture and mentality, and hence ultimately on normal daily life) are usually such that it would have been better to avoid it in the first place.

At the moment you regularly shoot/drone the dictators, the one deciding who is dictator warranting such violence is the most scary dictator of all.

This talk about good/bad people is such naive childish ploy, are we adults here or what?

[c22]

Some tools are definitely better than others. Also some tools are not "the right tool" for the job.

Fundamentally though I'm not sure I agree with you. Violence is often an emotional reaction. When violence is used as a tool it is usually (always?) used by bad people.

If it helps you reconcile my worldview, I absolutely oppose the existence of states.

[mjmsmith]

"Sadly" means "it's unfortunate that it got to the state where violence is necessary".

[esafak]

Violence absolutely is a moral concern.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

But if violence is useful or even necessary, how can we pretend to be saintly pacifists?

[froggy]

“If we lived in a world where dictators and their flying monkeys get regularly shot or droned to death, we wouldn't have dictators”

While I agree with the sentiment, the groups who support dictators (oligarchs, religious extremists) would decide to also use violence. So both dictators and the leaders on the side of the people would be murdered and society would be destabilized.

[JumpCrisscross]

> seems to only have a good track record in places with a democratic tradition

"All that said, there are very obviously regimes in the world that have rendered themselves more-or-less immune to non-violent protest. This isn’t really the place to talk about the broader concept of ‘coup proofing’ and how authoritarian regimes secure internal security, repression and legitimacy in detail. But a certain kind of regime operates effectively as a society-within-a-society, with an armed subset of the population as insiders who receive benefits in status and wealth from the regime in return for their willingness to do violence to maintain it. Such regimes are generally all too willing to gun down thousands or tens of thousands of protestors to maintain power.

The late Assad regime in Syria stands as a clear example of this, as evidently does the current regime in Iran. Such regimes are not immune to an ‘attack on will,’ but they have substantially insulated themselves from it and resistance to these regimes, if it continues, often metastasizes into insurgency or protracted war (as with the above example of Syria) because the pressure has nowhere else to go" (Id.).

[don_esteban]

Re: Sometimes - sadly - violence is the least worst answer.

The least worst for whom?! For normal Iranian people who just want to leave their life?

I hate my current government. Do I think an armed uprising or a USA bombing campaign would would improve things? Heck NO!

[JumpCrisscross]

> normal Iranian people who just want to leave their life?

Like the ones who are protesting? Idk, when people put themselves in front of a gun I'm inclined to listen to what they're demanding, not folks in their armchairs a world away.

[martin-t]

Differentiate legal, practical and moral reasons.

Hitler was so bad that anybody is willing to publicly talk about killing him, there are movies glorifying it, people talk about going back in time and killing baby Hitler. He was so bad that the very strong taboo against killing does not work on him.

So, when _exactly_ did it become OK to kill him? Think about it.

What cumulative sum of his actions between 1889 and 1945 tipped the balance?

Now, do those same rules apply to current dictators or people in the process of becoming dictators even if the taboo is still strong there?