[camdez]

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment...

Most of us, for fairly obvious reasons, decry the use of violence by individuals, yet we are all complicit in the use of violence by the state. Our democratic governments imprison and kill in our names both in war and for the enforcement of our laws. Sometimes (often?) wrongfully.

Why is our collective violence de rigueur but individual violence is immediately presumed to be evil and wrong?

Presumably use of violence by the state is intended to be "justified"; i.e. it is not random, emotional, or for gain (except, perhaps a societal gain of increased safety), but either for the cause of "justice", or for safety--and these calculated, functional properties with an aim of public good make the action acceptable.

The obvious difficulty of individual violence is the tendency for it to be emotional or for personal gain, or for a lack of rigor in establishment of guilt in the presumed crime of the victim. But if guilt has been firmly established, if the target of violence has, beyond a shadow of a doubt, committed heinous acts, then what is the fundamental difference? Isn't the elimination of a destructive force by an individual precisely the same in outcome as the elimination of the same force by a collection of individuals?

And in a thoroughly corrupt system which promotes, protects, and encourages these destructive forces--or a system which feigns to protect and represent its citizens (but doesn't actually do so)--mustn't the responsibilities of protecting and shepherding at some point eventually fall to the citizens themselves? Surely evil carrying your banner is still evil?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no proponent of violence. I think (even) our government should commit considerably less violence. I think we generally need to scorn violence by the individual because of the likelihood that it be unrigorous, emotional, or selfish. But I don't know that the difference in emotional weight between "kill" and "murder"--that is to say "unlawfully kill"--should be so great. It seems to me that the philosophical basis for the two should be the same, rather than scorning one and supporting the other because it carries a badge.

[saraid216]

> Why is our collective violence de rigueur but individual violence is immediately presumed to be evil and wrong?

The difference is one of authority. Goldman's authority to kill isn't accepted by society at large, whereas the due process of election, appointment, induction, training, and periodic evaluation is so accepted. You can argue about whether or not that acceptance is a good thing or a bad thing, and Goldman likely felt it was a bad thing, but that acceptance is the fundamental difference.

The presumption that individual violence is wrong follows from this systemization of it. When it wasn't, we did commit individual violence with no reason. This is rapidly apparent in watching children interact without intervention: they exhibit the full range of human extremes in both cooperating spectacularly but also in conflicting violently. By systematizing it, we've made it rare and remarkable.

And because it stands out, it's now considered wrong.

[camdez]

Well put.

The consequences of that are where things get interesting:

When violence is systemized we consider it OK. When something stands out we consider it wrong. Authority is presumed to be benevolent (or, at least, extra-moral).

[saraid216]

> Authority is presumed to be benevolent (or, at least, extra-moral).

It's subtler than that, though with our current standard of civics education it's not apparent.

It's that we presume that we ourselves is correct, and since we ourselves are a source of authority, then the authority we contribute to must therefore be correct. Benevolence has nothing to do with it; it's just egocentrism. We don't think of ourselves as nice; we think of ourselves as right.

[vasilipupkin]

when you conspire to kill another human being for whatever reason - it is a decision that you alone are making and have the full power to stop at any time, so you bear the full responsibility for it. When your state orders you to nuke Hiroshima, for example, it's a much more complicated situation, however horrific. So the two situations cannot be compared directly

[camdez]

Choosing to kill with non-governmental violence does not mean that the decision is made alone. In fact, the particular assassination in question was a plot involving multiple individuals. Killing via the government is a group decision involving more individuals. What is the magic number of individuals at which we no longer have to evaluate the morality of the situation? And, if such a number exists, what defines it?

And yes, the individuals perpetrating the action bear responsibility. But if the action is the correct one, then they bear responsibility for doing the right thing, no? Surely statehood is not an inherent justification for violence; the underlying action always has to be the correct one, regardless of the perpetrator.

I completely agree that state-ordered violence is complicated, but you’ve only begged the question that it cannot be compared to individual (or smaller-group) violence, not given a reason why it cannot.

[camdez]

I just noticed that you said "your state orders you", oops. That's not the situation I'm talking about. The morality of soldiers is a complex and interesting topic, but what my comment is about is the responsibility (or lack there of) borne by all citizens, given that their government (presumably) represents them in its actions.

[nutball]

Systemic violence so drastically outweighs "individual violence" in quantity and affect that there's just no real comparison. Me smacking a dude for talking shit doesn't even come close to the totality of systemic violence: war, poverty, houselessness, rape, abuse, racism, hunger, prison, policing, immigrant concentration camps, border security, alienation, queer bashing, trans murders, environmental catastrophe on a global scale. And that's just the present situation. This violence is felt by individuals very personally, but it is systemic in cause, affect, and result.

The police, media, and state point the finger at a very specific subset of activity and call it violence in order to distract from the overwhelming violence they perpetrate. This is particularly true of those who resist the current state of affairs. Rioters are "violent" because they smash windows. The cops who beat them are merely restoring order. Police are rarely described as "violent" even though they frequently shoot people and control populations with the use of force. Prisoners are the violent ones, not the ones who lock people up in cages. The most oppressed are the violent ones, not those who maintain the system of violence.

To give a little perspective on anarchy and violence:

Anarchism tends to reject moralism. The question isn't whether it's good or bad to kill Frick. It's not about punishing a person for a bad behavior as that sounds awfully like what the state does and it's so-called "Justice." Rather, it's about what force this activity will generate. If a hated figure is assassinated, will this spark revolt? This idea was called "propaganda of the deed" and a similar idea lives on in smashing windows and similar small-scale activities among current North American anarchists: activities that can be picked up by others easily and may spread among the wider population. Other ideas tend to focus on blowing shit up and stuff, like the CCF and FAI. That's cool and all, but I don't think that spectacular acts of violence against the state will do anything to hasten its demise.