Because it doesn't fit the definition of violence.
What is the definition of violence?
Readit Newschomskyole commented on Hit men aren't what you think slate.com/news-and-politi... · Posted by u/tzs
chomskyole commented on Hit men aren't what you think slate.com/news-and-politi... · Posted by u/tzs
It can't, that's why I said it's deficient when it comes to healthcare. Market forces are good at balancing capital allocations in general.
Ah ok, misread your comment then
chomskyole commented on Hit men aren't what you think slate.com/news-and-politi... · Posted by u/tzs
Yes
Sorry for the late reply.
So assuming that you are saying that hiring a hit man isn't violent, but the hit man doing the deeds is:
We are now looking at a definition of "violence" that apparently includes the tantrum of a four year old (physical attack with the intent to do harm) but does not capture hiring killers or the actions of most dictators of the last 150 years.
To be honest this doesn't sound like a useful definition and certainly doesn't match the emotional reaction the word "violence" evokes. What is the word meant for then?
chomskyole commented on Hit men aren't what you think slate.com/news-and-politi... · Posted by u/tzs
Letting somoene die to make more money is violence. But letting a hospital go bankrupt, which will eventually lead to others dying, would be no better.
We still struggle with the life and death decisions related to allocating capital do healthcare. Even single payer systems have this problem.
We can start by looking at what profit margins and administrative expenses are reasonable for health businesses. The free market generally solves these questiins, but it's notoriously deficient when it comes to healthcare.
Then we can find out how to best allocate the remaining money to maximize health outcomes while ensuring that the businesses are sustainable.
> The free market generally solves these questiins, but it's notoriously deficient when it comes to healthcare.
Can you please elaborate on this part? I don't see how this could be solved by market forces.
EDIT: Making healthcare for profit, would always put someone's life against someone else's new yacht. Is this how we want to assess these situations?
chomskyole commented on Hit men aren't what you think slate.com/news-and-politi... · Posted by u/tzs
No, it hasn't landed because that is the intentional feature of the system. We disguise violence and call it peace, but in reality the "peace" is really control. Of course, all societies have rules and customs for peace that sometimes require the sacrifice of the individual, but one must look at the ultimate aims.
The ultimate aim for a primitive society really is relative order and safety. The ultimate aim of modern technological society is the advancement of technology and the creation of a large workforce to keep the unsustainable machine going. That is what mutates custom into violence and law into subjugation.
I think the ultimate aim of modern society is to make 20% +x growth. And the background to that is that this one guy can say that they scored more points than his rich friend.
It's an absurd point system. And yes, it is underpinned by an absurd amount of hidden violence. I'm certain that it will change, since it is absolutely unsustainable. The amount of propaganda though is insane and we need to push back against it.
chomskyole commented on Hit men aren't what you think slate.com/news-and-politi... · Posted by u/tzs
> We don't like violence.
Why not? Violence is a tool like any other, and our entire western society is predicated on it. We are cogs in a corporate-run state and if we don't like it, there is the police force. If we get evicted, the police is there to tell us to stop sleeping on the bench. If we don't listen, they have the guns. The underlying systemic violence of our society is rampant.
Personally, while I neither like nor dislike violence, it can be a useful tool in revolutions where the state has become incompatible with the needs of the majority.
I agree with your overall assessment.
The narrative is that we decide on rational reasons (which doesn't excludes violence as such) mixed with a moral superiority (which excludes violence).
I think saying that we don't like violence is just sharing the moral common sentiment and hoping that it leads to some understanding/highlighting of the contradictions. The reality is that people will fight for life when you push them. What is "violent" is generally defined by those who are more powerful I'd say.
chomskyole commented on Hit men aren't what you think slate.com/news-and-politi... · Posted by u/tzs
> That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions?
Of course it is. This topic has already been covered ad nauseum by philosophers and social critics, e.g. Slavoj Zizek, Mark Boyle, etc.
Sure. I'm fairly certain you can find discussions going back millennia on this. Just still feel it hasn't landed. Somehow we still disguise certain types of violence...
chomskyole commented on Hit men aren't what you think slate.com/news-and-politi... · Posted by u/tzs
> Causing intentional harm is a pretty good definition of violence, don't you think?
And then the next step is diluting the meaning of the word “harm.” Is hurting someone’s feelings causing harm?
I think you are sidestepping the argument here.
Tell me, if I outsource the physical act of harm, say by paying someone to beat someone else up, would you say I am not violent?
Deleted Comment
Israel, as it it currently constituted (based on 1967 borders) is not a viable state if the West Bank is a hostile entity with a standing army, and funded to a similar extent as Hezbollah. The West Bank bulges into Israel and effectively cuts the country in half and places all strategic targets within shelling distance.
The Palestinian position seems to be "trust us that if you give us full, un-fettered independence, then we will not be a hostile entity" - but that's asking for Israel to place an enormous amount of trust in present and future Palestinian people and leaders, without any historical reasons to base this on, and highlighted by the worst case scenario of Hezbollah in the north, a foreign-controlled militia funded to the tune of 1 billion / year, and potential a hostile party in the West Bank (and Gaza) - effectively surrounding the country.
And it is more than just demilitarization. A demilitarized Palestine is not enough if, for example, Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars in arms to militia groups.
Hence we are where we are .. with Israel unable to disengage because doing so presents an existential risk to their nation.
Should they?