Can a free society be essentially free of violence?
We would end up like the story "The Giver"
If everyone had a gun then there would be a lot less crimes because criminals would be afraid they would get shot. Then only stupid people who don't care about living would commit crimes.
The only reason for that is fear, totalitarian oppression, and indoctrination.
I see your point, but in a free, armed society, there is not submission. There is consent.
Hence why we need to get back to being a free, armed society.
If you don't want violence from civilians, go and move to North Korea.
Mississippi, you weird
There will still be violence. violence is the only way to guarantee submission
As lame as it sounds, I look at Star Trek as a possibility of how humans may have evolved from a violent and greedy past to a future where the bad guys aren't us fighting each other but instead fighting the bad guys from other planets. Where there really doesn't seem to be any poverty and suffering.
It can in a perfect world, but it never will be.
Free of violence? No, not while maintaining freedom. But an armed society is a polite, and generally well-behaved society.
Does that also refer to the Apaches? If so, revise your statement.
Yes. Perfect example, the Native Americans
But gun control won't help. The problem was Adam LAN A's mental state; not the gun. The gun, by itself, is nothing; an inanimate object. A judge and jury try the PERSON ina murder case; NOT the gun.
There will always be violence, all we can do is try to minimize it.
The idea of Utopia is also one of the driving forces of evil. I know best, here's what we need to attain perfection, imprison or kill everyone who disagrees or doesn't fit the mold.
cheef, I hope you're being sarcastic. Otherwise your statement is ridiculous
yes, because people attempting to steal the property of others through force and violence is always motivated by religion or personal beliefs about the creation of the universe.
No. Humans will be human.
If you have access to JSTOR you can get the study from there and avoid the website.
Read the study not the website. I only point to the website so people can get the study easily. Otherwise you have to go to your local University to gain access to the study
That's beautiful :)
I looked at that web site. It says that some societies became less peaceful (whatever that means) when an observer was present. These are essentially family communities. My family is peaceful, too. Also, that web site looks like a blog. I don't trust it.
If a society tries to be free of violence, there will be no freedom.
Exactly my point. If you TRY to be free of violence, there will be no freedom.
Keyword - 'free'. That makes the answer 'no'.
What were they smoking? And 2 people on a desert island does not count!
Not as long as we are all human beings. It's life get over it. Do your best not to be part of the problem but be prepared to defend yourself when you get caught in the fray.
Never. Both dumb and crazy people have been doing dumb and crazy shit as long as humans have existed. The only way to stop this is to summarily execute (ergo the violence problem) anyone deemed dumb or crazy and clearly that's not going to happen.
At least they played better than the Niners did..Hell they were embarrassing
gun control won't help, and arming everyone won't help either. Both parties are being silly. As long as they maintain this abhorrence of a mental health system and a joke of a judicial system, it will go on. humankind is too greedy to be peaceful
It's in our nature, especially and mainly males, to be a little violent sometimes in one way or another.
@wed, if I may, I'm thinking that if a society maintains order by limiting freedom to express, than anarchy as a tool is indeed better than this brand of order. But, if anarchy is being used merely to express disagreement/objections to something society accepts generally, order must be restored.
You should read comments before you post. As I state below there is a study (Bonita 1996) that looks at 24 peaceful societies which are essentially free from violence.
This scenario would inherently involve violence against the citizenry so a police state would be violent too.
If not, that is ok too.
Son I know how this word is used. Can you explain your logic a little more for us to understand why you came to this conclusion please.
Just look up what mutually exclusive means. It's a fairly common phrase
It's official: 23% of liberals really do live in their own world.
Freedom in the sense of free from negatives than the society will be free
even then the government could be violent and every single person would have to be separated from one another to prevent a random act of violence
No, and banning guns wont help.
The only way violence could be minimal is in a high-tech police state where the government can see everything. Basically the opposite of a free society
There is no place free of violence freedom or not violence is and always be everywhere
I suppose the takeaway is that with our "advanced" societies comes violence.
Bonita 1996 you can get the article at peacefulsocieties.org
Hypotheticaly yes realistically no
The questions isn't weather one can have a society that is free of violence. The question is can we have it and retain freedom.