RE: The Bill of Rights (including The 2nd Amendment) was written to 'Protect The People' from their own government, not from each other. Which explains WHY 'career politicians' WANT your gun.
there is no difference between indirect violence and direct violence.
Let's setup a scenario with two people. One person and had food and a gun, and another person was is starving. If the person with the gun does not allow the other to gain access to food, and uses the gun as a means to do this, what will the eventual cause of death be? You could point your finger at the lack of food, you could also blame the man with a gun, or more specifically in my instance blame the reasoning of the man with the monopoly on violence used when they did not allow the other to access food.
You can complain about starvation all you want, but its the man with the gun that's the problem any way you slice it. The food is there, its the actions that cause the starvation.
so to some it up, poverty is the reason we sit by and watch each other die (or worse). Its the excuse we give ourselves as a group, so when i say death of poverty i mean deaths due to that excuse. In reality we are killing each other, poverty is just a word that conveys how exactly we are doing so.
What I meant was that money isn't really needed for survival. Food is, shelter is, companionship is. Money's a construct, that most of the time gets in the way of cooperation.
...
that was the entire point of my comment lmao
You were making it sound like violence would change things. I agree it would change things... but it wouldn't magically turn for the best.
yes it requires hard work, but there are many examples of it working throughout history so its not magical in any sense.
every person is capable of violence, so society itself must use violence of some form to protect itself.
French revolution? Well people have a much lower tolerance for oppression these days (I hope)
One of the actual problems is that society isn't really transparent in how it functions. Democracy? Fine, do that thing, but make sure you read the system requirements before hand. How many children are actually taught how the government functions as a basic lesson? I'm not sure there are any, even though it will affect the whole of your life.
Even the other forms of government are never discussed, they're only the field of "academics". As if we'd already solved the problem and there are no more answers because the system's perfect.
I'm not saying raise rebels, but at least follow the democratic ideals (actually put the case for why democracy is better than other systems)
democracy and capitalism are incompatible, so first we must remove capitalism. How would you propose we do that without violence?
Who said democracy and capitalism are incompatible? No way. Same problems could be dealt with by real capitalism and real democracy. At the moment we have something that calls itself something but isn't.
Communism, socialism isn't the answer either... Without turning people into some kind of "born slave"
anarchy might be a solution, but it could just as well not be.
I think a change in the world order is upcoming, and violence isn't going to be the leading cause (for once)
Unless you say "its just another form of violence."
social constructs are only used to mask the violence that is happening. You must use violence to protect yourself while unmasking them, or you will never make it to the finish.
from what you are saying it sounds like you are anpac, am I correct?
What's an anpac?
anarchist-pacifist, I assumed that since you were talking about social constructs you had some knowledge of anarchy (social constructs are commonly talked about within the anarchist community, with egoism being the source usually).
I am not anpac, but from speaking with them the gist I have is that non-violent insurrection is the only way to defeat capitalism without the creation of another state, thus in their mind it is the only path to an anarchist system of any sort.
I've read a book about it. I don't subscribe. But on the other hand I don't treat anarchy as a bad thing either. Pacifism... I'd never be one, but I'd much rather live in a pacifist society.
The world is not (yet) overpopulated, but intentionally ill-managed. The cities are overpopulated, which is all about captivating and consolidating slave labor [slavery being in total opposition to human thriving].
The overpop myth serves the owners, as does starvation, war, and poverty.. elevating the status of world banks (counterfiaters) to gods with power over life and death.
the problem is capitalism. Capitalism needs poverty to function, so its not even ill-managed its working as well as possible lmao
Poverty is their tribute to the god of money.
We haven't practiced capitalism in this Country since lbj, the dullest brothers, the clowns, and the mob murdered JFK. Been pure cronyism since. US gov was totally corrupt before Trump won the 'driver's seat' back from the cabal.
There are actually differences between direct and indirect forms of violence. A society would be much more unstable if direct forms of violence was encouraged. Think of the term out of sight out of mind. If a part of the society was encouraged to be violent it would lead to destabilizing effects in the future.
Although violence might be an answer. It should never be encouraged. Same with suicide. Its a personal choice which reflect more on the failure of society than on the actual individual. Often times we only look at the individual when someone does wrong, we never question the people they grew up with, or interacted with on a daily bases. And we almost never question ourselves.
the difference is peoples perception of the violence, which leads to the sustainability differences
every action is based on violence on some form, and I was talking about what exists today not any of the possible answers