Hypothetical Consideration of the Problem of Violence and Revolution

Many people considering this issue and the sort of tactics that would lead to liberation would be disinclined to think that violence would be a justifiable means.

It would seem absurd to take up arms, or carry out assassinations and bombings in the name of this cause.

Or would it?

Imagine a gentleman who had been involved in a loving relationship -- but it became exposed, and taking flight from the law, he is forced into a stand-off. Knowing that an unjust prison sentence of decades awaits him if he is taken, the gentleman makes the decision, in anguish, to kill the policeman, in self-defense, escapes and re-unites with his love.

In this light, the gentleman's decision to use violence seems much less absurd --even, justified.

Now, what if the gentleman had not waited until after his affair and flight to use justified violence in self-defense, but had preempted the inevitable injustice that would come on him?

What if he had shot and killed the policeman before instead of after the affair? Would his resort to violence to defend himself from certain injustice be any less justified?

It would seem not.

And with that, what had seemed absurd, now appears reasonable and justified.

Assassinations and bombings kill dead police officers and government officials, prisons and legislatures are blasted apart.

Oh, yes; I know what you're thinking, this is absurd, your freedom, truth, justice and beauty aren't worth defending....

I think violence is a necessary action devised to seek independence from others.

Always has been, always will be.

Is freedom of sexual orientation and action the sort of thing worth committing violence for? Why or why not?

Ivan wrote:

Is freedom of sexual orientation and action the sort of thing worth committing violence for? Why or why not?

It's all a matter of preference. I don't see why not. People do what they want.

You don't worry about being consistent?

Or, about scale?

Serge wrote:

You don't worry about being consistent?

Or, about scale?

In what way exactly?

Should I murder a man who is only blocking my way at a cross-walk?

Serge wrote:

Should I murder a man who is only blocking my way at a cross-walk?

If he is impolite, then I say yes, duel to the death.

Serge wrote:

Should I murder a man who is only blocking my way at a cross-walk?

Why not?

I might feel bad about it?