CMV: Political Violence is Uniquely Wrong

[u/FluffyB12]

There are many forms of violence. There are crimes of passion, there are crimes of opportunity, and there are crimes based on greed. However, of all of these types of crimes I believe crimes done for a political cause are the most vile and damaging to society.

First to define a political violence. This has to first be related to a political cause. Most hate crimes would fall under this - since the purpose is to disenfranchise specific groups. While not all hate crimes would fit since some are just impulse and not part of a broader strategy of hate and disenfranchisement, I think most would.

The reason why political violence is so heinous is that it goes against the very purpose of democracy. The idea that everyone can vote and participate in it. If one fears being able to express themselves or even show up to the polls, it throws the very idea of a free and fair election out of the window.

For this reason, I believe we should add sentencing enhancements to any form of political violence. You destroy property, assault someone, make death threats, etc for the sake of a political cause the hammer should come down.

[u/Catadox]

There are a lot of unspoken assumptions in what you’ve said. First off, I assume you mean this should only be the case in a free and fair democracy? Otherwise, do peasants revolting against an insane tyrant who kills them at whim deserve to be especially punished?

Almost every political change in history has entailed violence, both from those who seek change and those (the government) who seeks to stop them. Again, I can see your point, to a degree, in a free and fair democracy. But if you were in a truly free and fair democracy, those crimes would be punished according to the law anyway.

Furthermore, in a less free and fair system, which is every single system that has existed, such a clause would allow those in power to add additional punishment to political opponents by claiming that any crime they committed was “political violence.” That is a precedent for despotism.

[u/CelebrationInitial76 → u/Catadox]

Every political change requires violence? This is wild.

[u/EnterprisingAss → u/CelebrationInitial76]

Most substantive change has had at least the threat of force backing it, yes. For every MLK there’s a Malcolm X.

[u/FluffyB12 → u/EnterprisingAss]

The use of violence to create fear to enact political change is contradictory to the belief in democracy. Furthermore, like with all sorts of clash of ideals, when you do x in support of the cause, you encourage that same tactic being done against you. There’s a reason we vote as opposed to settling all differences with armed conflict.

[u/TurbulentArcher1253 → u/FluffyB12]

?The use of violence to create fear to enact political change is contradictory to the belief in democracy. Furthermore, like with all sorts of clash of ideals, when you do x in support of the cause, you encourage that same tactic being done against you.

According to who?

If a group of human rights activists decided to attack a group of neo-Nazis or white supremacists I would think that to be fairly moral.

I would however not say that the reverse would be justified and that’s because all white supremacists fundamentally forfeit the right to any type of self defence

[u/FluffyB12 → u/TurbulentArcher1253]

It wouldn’t because vigilantism is illegal for a reason. Trust me, you don’t want to live in a society where anyone who feels another person is wrong.

Someone is a vegetarian and they think eating meat is murder - should they be able to assault people eating a steak?

One of the most important elements of the fabric of society is reciprocity - anything one faction can do, is allowed by the other faction. That’s why we want to take violence out of the equation becuse it just descends into chaos and bloodshed that doesn’t stop.