chomskyole

There is an international perspective on the borders that I think should be mentioned. I think it is also worth mentioning that most people who live now in West Bank and the broader Palestine area were not consulted in how power and might is distributed, whether they benefit or suffer from it.

Should they?

What is the definition of violence?

Ah ok, misread your comment then

Sorry for the late reply.

So assuming that you are saying that hiring a hit man isn't violent, but the hit man doing the deeds is:

We are now looking at a definition of "violence" that apparently includes the tantrum of a four year old (physical attack with the intent to do harm) but does not capture hiring killers or the actions of most dictators of the last 150 years.

To be honest this doesn't sound like a useful definition and certainly doesn't match the emotional reaction the word "violence" evokes. What is the word meant for then?

> The free market generally solves these questiins, but it's notoriously deficient when it comes to healthcare.

Can you please elaborate on this part? I don't see how this could be solved by market forces.

EDIT: Making healthcare for profit, would always put someone's life against someone else's new yacht. Is this how we want to assess these situations?

I think the ultimate aim of modern society is to make 20% +x growth. And the background to that is that this one guy can say that they scored more points than his rich friend.

It's an absurd point system. And yes, it is underpinned by an absurd amount of hidden violence. I'm certain that it will change, since it is absolutely unsustainable. The amount of propaganda though is insane and we need to push back against it.

I agree with your overall assessment.

The narrative is that we decide on rational reasons (which doesn't excludes violence as such) mixed with a moral superiority (which excludes violence).

I think saying that we don't like violence is just sharing the moral common sentiment and hoping that it leads to some understanding/highlighting of the contradictions. The reality is that people will fight for life when you push them. What is "violent" is generally defined by those who are more powerful I'd say.

Sure. I'm fairly certain you can find discussions going back millennia on this. Just still feel it hasn't landed. Somehow we still disguise certain types of violence...

I think you are sidestepping the argument here.

Tell me, if I outsource the physical act of harm, say by paying someone to beat someone else up, would you say I am not violent?

Why do you think it is not violence?

> Do we? The term "violence" centers around the idea of using physical force.

It absolutely doesn't. Historically we judged laws as violent. Germany stands as an example.

> Please don’t dilute the term “violence,” or we’ll have to find another word to describe intentional harm using physical force.

Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think?

EDIT: for instance paying someone to do physical harm. How would you assess this?

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence.

It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence.

Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?

How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the decision is about the price for a certain treatment and you are balancing profit expectations from investors. Is this an act of violence? I'd imagine that the outcome of deaths could probably estimated quite reliably in this instance. And you would need to justify the various salaries and profits along the way and weighing it up against the number of people suffering. Does this sound violent to you?

EDIT: And I'm particularly keen to hear from the downvoters about this. Always keen on good arguments. Thanks :)

It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence.

Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?

How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the decision is about the price for a certain treatment and you are balancing profit expectations from investors. Is this an act of violence? I'd imagine that the outcome of deaths could probably estimated quite reliably in this instance. And you would need to justify the various salaries and profits along the way and weighing it up against number of people suffering. Does this sound violent to you?

Having only worked at large businesses, I'd be keen to see some data on this. I would think that the incentives in large organisations are similar?