4 ms·

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forgot this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." - Robert Heinlein This quote stuck with me, possibly due to the force of its presentation rather than its merits. I thought it would be interesting to present the other side of the debate to HN and open it up to comment. I'm undecided. Heinlein's viewpoint and the author's viewpoint are polar opposites. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.

qntty 11y ago
But the OP never says that violence never settles anything, his position is more nuanced than that (emphasis mine): "In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces."
- sillysaurus3 11y ago
  You're right. Apologies for misrepresenting Benjamin's position. (He's correct, I think.)
- ufmace 11y ago
  I honestly find his position kind of vague and impractical. He does recognize that the perpetrators of 9/11 and other such attacks should be brought to justice, but suggests that it be done through non-violent means. I would very much like to know exactly what non-violent means he thinks might have been effective at apprehending the Al-Quada bigwigs from a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. When the people who need to be brought to justice are in a nation that is friendly to them and entirely unconcerned about world opinion, economic sanctions, and other such tools of international diplomacy, I fail to see what realistic options there are besides violence. I may sound snarky at times, but seriously, if anyone has any realistic and practical ideas, please say so. That's more what bothers me about Pacifism - being totally unconcerned with the realities of the world. They just say "find a non-violent way to do it" and then leave somebody else to figure out how to do that. I think it only applies in a few limited situations, and in general, pure Pacifism means you will be dominated by anybody who is willing to use violence to achieve their goals.
Intermernet 11y ago
I feel that the truth isn't actually on that spectrum at all. The Human drive to solve conflicts with more conflicts is probably traceable to our evolution. Society has moved much faster than the standard genetic evolutionary feedback loops can deal with. Unfortunately, this leaves us with situation that people who "follow their instincts" are likely to behave more like chimpanzees than the "ideal human". Violence leads to the desire to achieve retribution. Those who achieve retribution almost invariably do so through more violence. Catch 22. Logically, this can be solved in two ways (hopefully there are others, but I can't identify them). Firstly, the majority (of the world population) recognizes this and agrees to stop violent solutions to problems in favor of mediation and rehabilitation (education, isolation etc.) of those who refuse to to "play by the new rules". This is unlikely to happen. Secondly, one side decides to do the Gandhi approach of non-violent civil disobedience, refuses to be part of the violent retribution, and lets the situation unfold. This also, is unlikely to happen. Humans have the ability to solve conflicts in many ways. We can compete in games of mental skill (Chess or Go), we can compete in games of physical prowess (Soccer or arm-wrestling), but I've yet to see a real attempt to compete in terms of compassion and understanding. Until we can debate our differences, decide and agree on who has the best solution for the species as a whole, then we're bound to keep repeating the mistakes of history. Mainly due to looking for the solution in the wrong place.
- actionwords 11y ago
  put down the pipe and come back to reality.
  - Intermernet 11y ago
    No pipe in hand, reality needs to be modified. That's the (admittedly optimistic) point.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
If only Heinlein was referring to Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan-none of which was an existential Hitler-esque war for Western Civilization.
- specialist 11y ago
  Ya. He's full of mic drops, like "A well-armed society is a polite society." Empirically untrue but has the patina of credibility and authority which pre-teen me found very compelling. But then I grew up.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
The word that sticks out is "breeds". Heinlein was of his time. I think that Paul Verhoven's satire on the very work to which you refer says it all. In it, the military is made to appear to be an elaborate human sacrifice ... cult run on survivor bias, in the service of creating a self-sustaining elite. The justification for slaughtering "bugs" is never supported. The master stroke is that the bugs are inherently disgusting. Violence has its uses. But institutional violence uses those parts of human behavior that make us ... crazy. CSPAN 3 has the Fuulbright Vietnam hearings available. They're worth watching.
mcguire 11y ago
Unfortunately, the proper response to that argument requires the counterparty to pull out a weapon and glock the character making it. Which is not possible because, IIRC, a teacher is making that attack on a student. (The power imbalance there leaves that statement slathered in irony, if you like that sort of thing.) Heinlein is not always spectacular about following through on the consequences of his ideas. I'll further note that he does not and cannot argue that the issues are settled satisfactorily.
geofft 11y ago
"Violence never settles anything" is sort of like "Torture doesn't work." It shouldn't matter whether it works, torture is inherently wrong. Most people who categorically object to violence do so because they categorically object to a worldview that approves or disapproves of tactics by their results.
- throwanem 11y ago
  Does the universe agree?
sitkack 11y ago
Said the man who literally wrote "Starship Troopers" a documentary about a fascist utopia.

qntty 11y ago

But the OP never says that violence never settles anything, his position is more nuanced than that (emphasis mine): "In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces."

sillysaurus3 11y ago
You're right. Apologies for misrepresenting Benjamin's position. (He's correct, I think.)
ufmace 11y ago
I honestly find his position kind of vague and impractical. He does recognize that the perpetrators of 9/11 and other such attacks should be brought to justice, but suggests that it be done through non-violent means. I would very much like to know exactly what non-violent means he thinks might have been effective at apprehending the Al-Quada bigwigs from a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. When the people who need to be brought to justice are in a nation that is friendly to them and entirely unconcerned about world opinion, economic sanctions, and other such tools of international diplomacy, I fail to see what realistic options there are besides violence. I may sound snarky at times, but seriously, if anyone has any realistic and practical ideas, please say so. That's more what bothers me about Pacifism - being totally unconcerned with the realities of the world. They just say "find a non-violent way to do it" and then leave somebody else to figure out how to do that. I think it only applies in a few limited situations, and in general, pure Pacifism means you will be dominated by anybody who is willing to use violence to achieve their goals.

Intermernet 11y ago

I feel that the truth isn't actually on that spectrum at all. The Human drive to solve conflicts with more conflicts is probably traceable to our evolution. Society has moved much faster than the standard genetic evolutionary feedback loops can deal with. Unfortunately, this leaves us with situation that people who "follow their instincts" are likely to behave more like chimpanzees than the "ideal human". Violence leads to the desire to achieve retribution. Those who achieve retribution almost invariably do so through more violence. Catch 22. Logically, this can be solved in two ways (hopefully there are others, but I can't identify them). Firstly, the majority (of the world population) recognizes this and agrees to stop violent solutions to problems in favor of mediation and rehabilitation (education, isolation etc.) of those who refuse to to "play by the new rules". This is unlikely to happen. Secondly, one side decides to do the Gandhi approach of non-violent civil disobedience, refuses to be part of the violent retribution, and lets the situation unfold. This also, is unlikely to happen. Humans have the ability to solve conflicts in many ways. We can compete in games of mental skill (Chess or Go), we can compete in games of physical prowess (Soccer or arm-wrestling), but I've yet to see a real attempt to compete in terms of compassion and understanding. Until we can debate our differences, decide and agree on who has the best solution for the species as a whole, then we're bound to keep repeating the mistakes of history. Mainly due to looking for the solution in the wrong place.

actionwords 11y ago
put down the pipe and come back to reality.
- Intermernet 11y ago
  No pipe in hand, reality needs to be modified. That's the (admittedly optimistic) point.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

If only Heinlein was referring to Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan-none of which was an existential Hitler-esque war for Western Civilization.

specialist 11y ago
Ya. He's full of mic drops, like "A well-armed society is a polite society." Empirically untrue but has the patina of credibility and authority which pre-teen me found very compelling. But then I grew up.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

The word that sticks out is "breeds". Heinlein was of his time. I think that Paul Verhoven's satire on the very work to which you refer says it all. In it, the military is made to appear to be an elaborate human sacrifice ... cult run on survivor bias, in the service of creating a self-sustaining elite. The justification for slaughtering "bugs" is never supported. The master stroke is that the bugs are inherently disgusting. Violence has its uses. But institutional violence uses those parts of human behavior that make us ... crazy. CSPAN 3 has the Fuulbright Vietnam hearings available. They're worth watching.

mcguire 11y ago

Unfortunately, the proper response to that argument requires the counterparty to pull out a weapon and glock the character making it. Which is not possible because, IIRC, a teacher is making that attack on a student. (The power imbalance there leaves that statement slathered in irony, if you like that sort of thing.) Heinlein is not always spectacular about following through on the consequences of his ideas. I'll further note that he does not and cannot argue that the issues are settled satisfactorily.

geofft 11y ago

"Violence never settles anything" is sort of like "Torture doesn't work." It shouldn't matter whether it works, torture is inherently wrong. Most people who categorically object to violence do so because they categorically object to a worldview that approves or disapproves of tactics by their results.

throwanem 11y ago
Does the universe agree?

sitkack 11y ago

Said the man who literally wrote "Starship Troopers" a documentary about a fascist utopia.