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:
It bothers me when I hear rationalizations of the UK riots being about the marginalized poor reaching a breaking point and lashing out against the country's power elite. That's complete nonsense as there was no politics behind their actions.
If the riots were truly an uprising, they would have burned Downing Street, not hauled off flat screen TVs and Playstations. This was thuggery, vandalism, and nothing else. Those who took part were opportunistic violent yobs who had nothing better to do than destroy other people's livelihoods.
We'll only see an uprising when the middle-class reach their breaking point. From the way things are going, it looks like that won't take much longer.
NINOY + PEOPLE POWER: What MEDIA is not telling us
This video delves into the facts behind the 1986 EDSA Revolution in the Philippines and uses them to challenge our existing narrative. Whether or not you agree with the film maker's interpretation, it's worth at least considering the alternative viewpoint presented here.
Personally, I think this offers the simplest explanation of the events and is more in line with what we know of human nature and how an oligarchy behaves. If you've scratched below the surface of Philippine society and wondered why most of the companies and resources are owned by a few families, this documentary should provide some insight.
It's only a webgame. What's interesting to me is how Britain's popular consciousness reflects on its present day government's totalitarian tendencies. If the media is a window on society, clearly people do acknowledge how things might be if they continue to choose security over freedom.
Paulo Coelho speaks at the Digital, Life, Design in Munich. He tells of how pirating his own book increased sales in Russia from 1,000 copies per year to more than a million copies. His most interesting point, though, is that "the blessing of the internet is increased human contact." Tim Harford echoes this in chapter seven of his book, The Logic of Life. It's become clear that rather than causing people to be come isolated, the internet actively encourages more human contact.
“
In 1969, a 14-year-old Beatle fanatic named Jerry Levitan, armed with a reel-to-reel tape deck, snuck into John Lennon's hotel room in Toronto and convinced John to do an interview about peace.”
