Speak softly, and carry a big stick.

unenlightened

(A Scottish proverb.)

Today is 'Armed Forces Day'. There's a warship in the bay, artillery on the promontory, marching bands on the promenade, fighter jets in the air, and the great and the good gracing the theatre/concert hall. And thousands of citizens milling about enjoying the spectacle amid some fairly heavy 'security' (both personnel and heavy barriers and the like) and extra police.

The big stick is on display and we are encouraged to applaud, but this is not speaking softly. I understand the reality that all this is 'necessary' to defend humanity from humanity, but I am inclined to mourn, not to celebrate.

So I went to the designated 'official protest point' and there was nobody there. It was the emptiest place in a very crowded town. A patch of parched grass and the official sign, and me standing like a lemon without even a placard, because philosophers don't really do slogans. "What do we want? Not to celebrate our communal insanity. When do we want it? Before we're all dead." I had heard a rumour that there was a lone protestor - hard to be unpatriotic and anti-social, so I went to see and maybe support, but if he had been there, he had given up or been arrested. So I was the only killjoy in the village, and nobody even noticed, because they were looking at the fighter jet roaring and twirling over the bay. It was too hot and noisy, so I left.

On the way home, I stopped to help my neighbour, well into his nineties hobble up the couple of steps to his front door. 10 minutes and 2 helpers and a zimmer frame to manage three steps. He's a WW2 veteran, served in the far east. A display of formation hobbling of no interest to anyone but the participants.

But everyone admires my heritage tomatoes sunning themselves the window boxes, and the aerial display of hanging baskets, more cause for celebration, and no security needed. Whereas we and our security forces need to take extra security measures because the security forces are on display...?

There is no security. It is a vain quest.

Hanover

There is no security. It is a vain quest. — unenlightened

There is no absolute safety, but varying degrees, and it sounds like where you live is relatively peaceful, especially compared to other areas of the world. And the truth is that those tools of mass destruction and death you saw on display form a good part of the reason you are so safe.

Agustino

↪unenlightened

My opinion is that we are sitting on the precipice of Western civilization as we know it. We are at a historical cross-roads at the moment, and what will happen in the next 50 years may very well decide the next 300. The way I see it, the world is in chaos, and we need to bring back some form of order. How will we do it?

Agustino

And the truth is that those tools of mass destruction and death you saw on display form a good part of the reason you are so safe. — Hanover

I sort of agree. Unenlightened is, in a way, sitting on the white sepulcher of colonialism, and crying foul. The irony being that, it is precisely by climbing on the sepulcher that it is possible to cry foul at all.

Moliere

↪unenlightened

Independence day is coming up in the states. I often have similar feelings about it.

unenlightened

the truth is that those tools of mass destruction and death you saw on display form a good part of the reason you are so safe. — Hanover

Always nice to have the truth pointed out to one. Indeed, my big stick is my security against your big stick or some other bugger's big stick. And the bigger the stick, the more secure. Hurrah for big sticks, therefore!

Stan

Hurrah for sapiens sapiens, a territorial primate, who’s closest cousin, in a manner of speaking, is pan troglodytes? I see it as in the nature of the beast, which may be modified somewhat by civilization. Hurrah for civilization, as imperfect as it is!

unenlightened

Hurrah!
And then there are the big sticks that do not look so good on television, and where the hurrahs ring hollow.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/30/british-intelligence-officers-linked-to-man-waterboarded-83-times-mi6-cia-rendition?CMP=fb_gu

Banno

↪unenlightened

And this one, Un.

andrewk

↪unenlightened

It is hard to argue that armed forces are not necessary to a peaceful life, as Hanover pointed out. I think of them as a necessary evil. I admire those who join the armed forces, or the police for that matter, for the right reasons - a desire to serve and protect. I fear that many join both for wrong and anti-social reasons, but that's humans for you. We still need the services.

What we don't need though, is a celebration of the weapons of destruction, like fighter jets, warships, missiles and tanks. Parading those is not just carrying a big stick. It's waving it about.

The trouble is though - human nature again - little boys just love military toys. I know this because I once was a little boy, and I loved them then. So if we want people to occasionally get enthused about the armed forces - and that is to some extent necessary in countries like ours that have no compulsory military service - it's a lot easier if we trot out the big toys for the kids to ooh and aah over, overlooking the sad truth that their purpose is to kill people and mangle flesh.

Banno

Some people feel safer taking a gun to Ikea. Me, not so much.

unenlightened

It is hard to argue that armed forces are not necessary to a peaceful life, as Hanover pointed out. I think of them as a necessary evil. — andrewk

No it isn't. Armed forces are completely useless to a peaceful life, and only function in a violent life.

andrewk

↪unenlightened

I tend to agree with Hanover, and with Hobbes, that it is the threat of violence on our behalf by the armed forces and police that allows people like you and I that have been granted the rare privilege of a peaceful life, to continue to have that privilege. It keeps the Huns, Goths, Visigoths, Mongols, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans at bay.

I fully recognise the tragedy that that privilege is not extended to people growing up surrounded by violence in the Jasmine Allen Estate or such like, and I wish I knew how to fix that, but I don't.

Shawn

A case in point to your sentiment is the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, or the logical extreme of your point at least.

If we lived in a perfect world and everyone we're as rational as I am, we would all get along fine and dandy. But, it's not a perfect world.

unenlightened

it is the threat of violence on our behalf by the armed forces and police that allows people like you and I that have been granted the rare privilege of a peaceful life, to continue to have that privilege. — andrewk

Then it is not a peaceful life, is it? I pay you to be violent for me, and then claim to be peaceful. That's bollocks. Fake news.

andrewk

↪unenlightened

It's peaceful as long as the violence is only a threat.

If violence actually happens then it depends on why it happened. If it happens in the name of colonialism or other projections of power overseas, as has so often happened in the history of European countries and the US, then it increases the violence, and I abhor it. On the other hand if the violence is defensive, then it has only replaced other violence that was going to happen anyway when the aggressor invaded our country. If the military is well-trained and well-equipped, the violence will probably be less than what would have happened if the aggressor had invaded without military opposition.

I am in favour of having a defensive military service, but not an aggressive one. The Japanese have the right idea, calling it a defence service rather than an army.

Marcus de Brun

↪unenlightened

What a beautiful and enlightened post. Even though you were alone at the 'official protest point' (an oxymoron of epic proportion) The Gods of philosophy are with you.

Inspiring words, keep them coming they are louder than bombs.

M

unenlightened

It's peaceful as long as the violence is only a threat. — andrewk

No it isn't. If I stand guard over my tomatoes with a big stick, that is violent even if everyone keeps out of my way. Threats of violence are violence; peace is not threatening.

andrewk

↪unenlightened

It appears we have different ideas of what constitutes violence and what constitutes peace. I doubt that difference can be bridged.

unenlightened

↪andrewk

I don't think we do. I think you are trying to justify violence and pretend it is peace.

I cannot peacefully put a gun to your head and demand you agree. I am using the weapon against you, even if I do not fire it.

Agustino

No it isn't. If I stand guard over my tomatoes with a big stick, that is violent even if everyone keeps out of my way. Threats of violence are violence; peace is not threatening. — unenlightened

I don't understand how the world you're proposing will ever work out. People need to know that there are consequences for actions. The sort of world you're proposing, without the stick, is a world where no communication of consequences is made. But we have limited resources, and often our human desires come into conflict with one another. We need a mechanism by which to negotiate. And negotiating presupposes that both parties communicate with each other and understand the consequences. There is nothing violent about me saying that if you steal my property, I will defend it. There is, on the other hand, something violent about you appropriating my property.

Imagine a world where people don't know there are consequences... We could form no association whatsoever in that world. Society demands a certain degree of discipline. Without that, all our associations end up being temporary associations, so long as our self-interest aligns. There could be no family for example.

Moliere

There is nothing violent about me saying that if you steal my property, I will defend it. — Agustino

Sure there is. There is the threat -- threatening others is still violence. Calling it "defense" doesn't change that.

If you raise a weapon and tell me to hand over the cash in the register and then don't pull the trigger -- you're threatening me in order to motivate a certain course of action.

Defensive violence is just the sort of violence we view as being justified, usually because of the presence of some other violence. But the threat is no less violence just because it's the kind of violence we think is a necessary evil.

Moliere

Another way to look at it --

consider you are invaded by some fighting force, and are forced to defend your homes. Because it is justified and defensive do the missiles and bullets lobbed at the enemy somehow become non-violent?

No, of course not.

Agustino

Sure there is. There is the threat -- threatening others is still violence. Calling it "defense" doesn't change that. — Moliere

I don't see it as a threat, I see it as communication of consequences. So if you were to tell your child, "if you don't do your homework, it won't be fair for me to give you your weekly allowance", I don't see that as a threat. It's communicating to them how you will react to their actions so that they are aware of it and can take it into account when deciding what to do.

Consequences may be "violent", if by that you mean that they are things that someone does not desire to happen. That's not necessarily negative though.

Agustino

How else can we live together, if not by this mutual give and take? We all have desires from one another, we are social creatures. If we don't take these desires into account, if we don't communicate them, if we don't communicate what our boundaries are, there will be trouble...

unenlightened

I don't understand how the world you're proposing will ever work out. — Agustino

I haven't proposed a world. I have merely pointed out and lamented that the world that we live in is founded on violence. As it is, my tomatoes are right on the street, and any passer-by can take them, and I do not defend them. And if you happened to be passing, and were hungry, I would not think it a violence if you took one, though I would if you took them all.

There is nothing violent about me saying that if you steal my property, I will defend it. — Agustino

It's not your property, it's mine, because the world belongs to me, and since you have already stolen it, there is, according to your logic, nothing violent about my recovering it and defending it from you.

This is nonsense isn't it? Because a thing is not mine simply because I say so, it is mine by social agreement. And the social agreement is enforced by the threat and use of violence against those who fail to agree.

Agustino

I haven't proposed a world. I have merely pointed out and lamented that the world that we live in is founded on violence. — unenlightened

So why do you decry that the world is founded on violence if you don't even have an alternative? I fail to see how it could be otherwise, without us losing many of the things we value.

it is mine by social agreement. — unenlightened

Agreed.

And the social agreement is enforced by the threat and use of violence against those who fail to agree. — unenlightened

By what else could the social agreement be enforced? We have desires from each other, we are social creatures. I desire my son not to smoke for example, because it is harmful to him. If he does smoke, what shall I do? Shall I not seek to change that? And if I do, will my desire not be violent, since it is opposed, at least, to his current way of thinking?

unenlightened

I don't see that as a threat. It's communicating to them how you will react to their actions so that they are aware of it and can take it into account when deciding what to do. — Agustino

If how you will react is violent, then communicating that is a threat. That's what it means to threaten. If you disagree, I will bite your head off.

unenlightened

By what else could the social agreement be enforced? — Agustino

That's quite funny. I'm inclined to admit that nothing can be enforced without violence.
But then I would suggest that if we agree, we don't need to enforce anything.

Agustino

So do you take all communications of reactions which can be seen as negative or unfavourable by the other party as threats?

From my experience people don't take them this way. If I tell a subcontractor "look, you've already been late 1 day, if you are late another day I will have to cut 10% off your price because you are creating additional costs for us, and it's not fair for us to bear the costs alone". On the other hand, if you were to tell someone "work 24/7 for me or else I will fire you and make sure you starve" now that is a threat and abusive too.

Agustino

That's quite funny. I'm inclined to admit that nothing can be enforced without violence.
But then I would suggest that if we agree, we don't need to enforce anything. — unenlightened

Are you kidding me? How else can we have a society then? You're behaving as if we didn't have expectations from each other, and conflicting desires that we need to negotiate. Without negotiating them, we won't be able to live together.

My son smokes. I don't like that. We will need to negotiate that... Maybe he doesn't smoke around me, etc. Without negotiating, we cannot live together.

Speak softly, and carry a big stick.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions