Civilization and Violence

Civilization and Violence

Violence is an interesting point of contention with regards
to the pacifists, voluntaryists, egalitarians, and liberty
loving, near anarchic minds that condemn slavery. It should
be asked, what is violence, and why does it exist? Violence
is the initiation of excessive physical force relative to
normal societal relations, generally of an illicit or illegal
nature. Now that we have our definition, we must ponder the
age old question, “Why does violence exist?” The concept of
civilizational violence is predicated upon an understanding
and sanctioning of a normal standard of relations that are
perceived to be a-violent. For civilization violence is not
deemed to be the initiation of force, but instead it is the
excessive use of force aiding what is wrong, undesirable, or
immoral. Excessive, a-moral violence always has been the issue
of the day for civilized man. We condone violence, or implied
violence to ensure the keeping of contracts, the obedience
to normalcy, laws, and edicts. A Police force, and the legal
structure which imposes mandated isolation and reform is
a grand representative of condoned structural violence. A
state controlled, a-voluntary system of education for our
youth is civilizational implied violence. We utilize,
and deem structured violence appropriate, and admirable.
The allocation of a-personal violence is an indispensable
facet of civilization. Is that so objectionable?

The commoner engaging in this discussion would immediately
object and posit that “Violence is always objectionable,
and never laudable, and to the extent there’s truth in the
aforementioned statements those systems should be reformed
if not eliminated.” They respond in this manner based on
two premises, one of which: “Violence is wrong as within
civilization, we need to have universal standards for the
ensuring of continued structural/social stability.” The
secondary objection tends to be: “Violence is wrong because
violence is immoral.” My premise differs quite distinctly.
Violence and civilization are intertwined, to have one you
must have the other. If we think beyond the well traversed
world of theoretical conceptions, and asses what civilization
is, the conclusion follows. Civilization is a series of social
contracts. To have a social contract that can ensure mutual
trust you must have an equal understanding of just consequence.
To act in violation of this contract is to act in defiance
of civilization, and civilization has to reform in order to
survive, thus we see the introduction of violence, a moral
violence as it serves good, a just violence as it aids in
removing wrong, and a proper violence as is sanctioned by
all. Slavery is this manifestation of structured violence,
in the noble pursuit of mitigating future a-structural violence,
impropriety, and wrong. The classical saying “Two wrongs don’t
make a right.” may come to mind for many, when discussing the
isolated individual, or regional particulars this may have
some validity, but when the discussion of the near irreducible
complexity of civilization is the subject at hand, I instead
would posit, “What right does not encompass some wrong?”
Humanity whether viewed as fallen angels, or risen apes
will encompass some degree of immorality, to not condone
a system because there will necessarily be immoral facets
is folly. Civilization is indistinguishable, functionally
speaking, from slavery. One cannot negate hierarchy, and
to the degree one can that is the worst variant of wrong.
To have civilization is to have structure, to have structure
is to have violence. Structured violence in productivities
name can, will, and should always be utilized to mitigate
unstructured, societally corrosive violence.

call to chat