People often confuse violence with aggression and thus believe, foolishly, that the principle of non-violence is virtuous. So twisted are their morals that they would allow the coercion of innocent people in the vain attempt to avoid violence.
They are wrong. Sometimes you need to use violence to protect yourself and others against aggressors. In contrast, it is often difficult to make a rational case for the use of aggression.
How exactly are the two concepts different? Violence can be defined as the "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse". Aggression, on the other hand, is "a forceful action or procedure especially when intended to dominate or master". The difference is subtle but crucial: the intention of domination or mastery over another human being.
Aggression is the threat or initiation of violence with the ultimate goal of subjugation. A robber forces his victim to hand over property; a rapist defiles the body and mind not simply for sex but to dominate; governments enact laws and demand compliance; nation-states go to war to show their power over other nations.
Acts of coercion can ultimately only be countered by violence. Rarely can you dissuade an attacker unless your words are backed by at least the potential of force.
Modern society has become so afraid of violence that we want it banished, relegated only to movie theatre fantasy. We think that passing laws will make it vanish from real life. It won't. Keeping our fighting spirit locked up only encourages the aggressors to come out and play.
The path of non-violence is futile because violence is an innate part of being alive. If anything, believe in the principle non-aggression.
Edit 23/12/2011:Here's Charles St. Michael talking about bullies and explaining why violence solves everything:
