Violence should never be a first resort, but has it’s place among negotiations.
i agree in the abstract, i’m less sure in reality. SCOTUS makes an unpopular ruling that takes away right to abortion for half the country: doctors in affected areas feel the credible threat of violence “i’ll lose my home and i’ll be locked behind bars if i perform abortions”, but SCOTUS don’t feel any threat like that. they’re free to make millions worse off because they don’t really fear repercussions for it.
violence isn’t a first resort, but organized society as we know it depends on the credible threat of violence. if only one party feels that threat to be credible, then “negotiations” are one-sided. “demilitarize the police” is a great way to balance those threats of violence by reducing violence (yay), but failing that how else to make the side you’re negotiating with treat your threat of violence as credibly as you treat theirs other than to actually use violence?
i agree in the abstract, i’m less sure in reality. SCOTUS makes an unpopular ruling that takes away right to abortion for half the country: doctors in affected areas feel the credible threat of violence “i’ll lose my home and i’ll be locked behind bars if i perform abortions”, but SCOTUS don’t feel any threat like that. they’re free to make millions worse off because they don’t really fear repercussions for it.
violence isn’t a first resort, but organized society as we know it depends on the credible threat of violence. if only one party feels that threat to be credible, then “negotiations” are one-sided. “demilitarize the police” is a great way to balance those threats of violence by reducing violence (yay), but failing that how else to make the side you’re negotiating with treat your threat of violence as credibly as you treat theirs other than to actually use violence?