Disagree. Of course it is always better to work things out without violence and force, and those options should always be resorted to as a last full measure. But sometimes they have to be resorted to. The fallacy of the peaceful protest idea is the assumption that those one is entreating actually care about the pressure from the masses. And the great majority of the time, this is the case. Yet certain individuals and entities are pathologically incapable of responding normally and logically to resistance and disagreement. Once these individuals and entities hold power, they will not release it unless forced. And in those circumstances, the only force that they will respond to is physical. Of course a physical response can't just be random rioting in the streets; this is counter-productive, as the original post explained. It would have to be organized and directed towards a specific desired result. But every major social change to wrest power away from those who hold it, or wish to hold it, unilaterally, has involved some kind of force. I doubt George III would have released the Colonies if all we did was continue to petition or dump tea into the sea. Even way back in the Middle Ages, King John had to be kidnapped before he would agree to sign the Magna Carta. If you would like a Biblical reference, Moses, through the power of god, had to reign down a fairly drastic show of force before pharaoh agreed to let his people go... people like that are bullies, and bullies only respond to force.
No comments:
Post a Comment