Interesting post.
"If someone is physically abusive to another then that person has the right to strike back with sufficient force to make the other person stop."
I don't agree with this statement. Legally talking, the only individuals allowed by law to use physical or mental violence are the army and police. Anybody else is allowed to use violence only in a defensive way and not on revenge.
Of course, we are talking from a legal point of view in a western country. Upvoted and following. Cheers!
That's literally what he described in your quote. Not sure what the disagreement is.
from what is my understanding, in the post it is written that if someone receive abuse it has the right to use violence against the abuser until the abuse stop. That is revenge and making justice by yourself and not self-defense.
No, it's not. If someone strikes you, are you saying you don't have the right to respond in kind?
if you respond for self defense because otherwise that person would keep striking you, you have the right to respond. If that person strikes you one time and then walk away, you don't need to exercise any violence but you should call the police or the institutions to legally protest and ask for defense against the violence that has been used against you.
So the whole "if they turn their back to you, your hands are tied" schtick? No. Doesn't work that way. Ethically, once someone violates your body through force, you are ethically excused from liability for responding in kind.
I'm not going to delve to deeply into it, but this is a philosophical discussion. You have the ethical right to defend yourself against an attacker, even if they hold their hands up immediately after attacking you. The police or other "legal" institutions in place that claim dominion over the provision of security don't change that.
I agree and the reason for this is that it prevents future violence and is not just vengeance. If someone hits you and then sticks their hands up so you don't do anything then they got away with it and will likely do things like this again.
Governments are by definition violent. They are that which has a legal monopoly on violence in a particular region.
Are you sure the governments are by definition violent? According to which definition?
Yes the definition of violence used is the use of force to coerce people to do things that they would not do of their own free will. How many people would voluntarily pay taxes that they have little to no say on how they are spent? What happens if you don't pay those taxes? In many countries cannabis, a harmless plant with medicinal applications, is illegal. The people who use this harm noone by doing so but are coerced by the threat of force to not use it. The list goes on and on how government exercises a monopoly on violence.
TheWalrus has got its own definitions for several words. Every word deserves an article like this. Perhaps governance would be next. 😉