[Cookie Monster]

Yes, but only between states.

I'd rather not return to the pre-Westphalian days.

I am surprised that you hold this opinion, that only violence between states can be politically justified.
I think you would agree that a State can perform justified violence against non-state actors like guerilla movements.

To add, I think Fasces should change the first option into "violence by states" which would make it more consistent with the second option.

[Dave]

I am surprised that you hold this opinion, that only violence between states can be politically justified.
I think you would agree that a State can perform justified violence against non-state actors like guerilla movements.

To add, I think Fasces should change the first option into "violence by states" which would make it more consistent with the second option.

The choice was incoherent, obviously holding the idea that only states should have the right to use force implies that states not only can but must crush violent non-state actors.

[SecretSquirrel]

Violence is only just in defense from violence

Violence is never just when used to advance a political agenda -- unless in self defense as above.

[Swinging Man]

Yes, by any actor(as long as it's in defense of violence).

[Murph]

Vigilantes are pretty bad-ass, we basically worship them in America, so I'm going to say Yes, by any actor.

Was William Wallace justified when he slit that ass-holes throat in Braveheart? Obviously yes.

[Wolfman]

From a historic perspective, that movie was terrible. It leaves out incredibly important details, like that the Scottish asked the English to rule them because they were tired of an ongoing civil war, but didn't know how to reconcile their differences. It also added random crap that never happened. Examples of that escape me though.

[Fasces]

Did you know Marcus Aurelius wasn't a republican Roman either?

[Murph]

I agree Wolfman. It's like a celtic fantasy.

I first watched it when I was 10 and didn't know anything about history. Back then it was awesome, so I still enjoy it. From a hollywood perspective it gets the job done.

[Hamster]

Was William Wallace justified when he slit that ass-holes throat in Braveheart? Obviously yes.

Braveheart is one of the worst films ever.

Violence is never just when used to advance a political agenda -- unless in self defense as above.

In that case, was the American Revolution justified? You'd have to use a very loose definition of "violence" to say that Washington and co were acting in self-defence...

[Donna]

Violent non-state acting is difficult to justify since it is always marginalized by the hegemonic ideology and this compromises its direct effectiveness, but it can nonetheless be pragmatically "justified". The legacy of the Black Panther Party and earlier black nationalism, for example, might be justified on the basis that it provided an ideological framework for the civil rights movement to very effectively present itself as non-violent and the same might be said about violent anti-Raj tendencies in Gandhi's India. Similarly, people have been carrying out acts of terrorism against despotic Arab governments for decades before the Arab Spring utilized non-violence to alter the hegemonic ideologies of their societies. Of course, it's difficult for anyone to really sympathize with extremists because they generally believe their violence will produce direct rather than indirect results.

[Murph]

Braveheart is one of the worst films ever.

[Donna]

I've always liked Braveheart.

[Hamster]

Being "terrible" and being "likeable" are not mutually exclusive.

[Wolfman]

The various things like the Oscars are basically horseshit. Winning an Oscar doesn't mean you're good, just that you're popular. Now. Some of the greatest actors and directors (etc) never won a single award. Besides, it isn't like they get too indepth into the important people involved in movies. What about the gaffers. Do they not do an important job!?!

[danholo]

I'll always be justified to use violence. The rest are thoroughly forbidden to do so, by threat of execution.

[Kman]

Braveheart is one of the worst films ever.

BURN THE HERETIC!!

[Hamster]

But Kman, that would violate the non-aggression principle. How very un-libertarian of you.

[Oxymoron]

Braveheart is one of the worst films ever

idiotic statement and that is speaking kindly.

[SomeRandom]

[youtube]ybQCNb4AuW4[/youtube]

3:53

Yes - by any actor.

[Thunderhawk]

Yes, by any actor.
What is considered "justification" varies and can itself lead to conflict. Using canons to justify cannons..