Politics Forum.org | PoFo

The would kind of be the point.

As in you would also be negativly affected.

Fear is the key word there. Without fear, those who rule by force are in fact powerless. Murdering someone does not get them to do work for you, and if the act itself doesn't intimidate others into working, the totalitarian has reached a dead end.

But fear will always be there. They dont just have to threaten you. They can threaten your family. That will always scare people into work.

Yes, the Nazis would've shot those who didn't obey them, but without their obedience they couldn't have killed nearly as many as they did.

Yes but those who were building the camps believed in a thing called hope. That they would get out alive.

Passive resistance only works when there is no fear and no hope.

I read most of the posts (not all, I did not have time), and I fear the thread is sidetracking.

The question is violence as a last resort. From the last few posts I see that the argument has become what constitutes property.

I see a point about passive resistance. Well, it is an oxymoron. Resistance must be active, otherwise it is not resistance. Resistance is the objection by action to a certain force. If you work around the problem, you are not resisting. It is possible to defeat the force entirely without resisting; something like international pressure would be an example.

I apologize if I misunderstood a point, but I have little time to read every line.



[Vivisekt Edit ::] In the future, do not reply unless you've read all of the argument that has been presented. This will work to avoid the redundancy that manifests when people make points that have already been addressed over the course of the thread.

This discussion is now completed.