Hacker News Reader

Comment by granzymes | Hacker News Reader

Political violence is not acceptable in a democracy.

Full stop, no "but". That's all that needs to be said on this thread.

Political violence is actually really important.

Here in Sweden, back in the 1400eds etc. the farmers often made war on the government whenever it did anything they didn't like. This had the long term consequence, that by the end of this era, self-owning farmers owned 50% of the land in Sweden, whereas in Denmark, which did not have this kind of violence, it was only 10%.

It's incredibly important to be feared and to engage in violence, so that you are in practice and can threaten your political opponents, and this remains true in a democracy.

It's important that powerful people know they can't trust that they will truly be protected by the laws if they do something which harms others-- that the veneer of civilization is thin and the masses dangerous. Otherwise you end up with very dangerous situations where people can get away with anything that's legal.

I get the sentiment but this is disengenuous. Political violence built this democracy

I believe it doesn't matter. You see, if you try applying this trick to different traits of a society, it would lead to conclusions like: it is impossible for us to build an environmentally conscious society because we come here by being environmentally unconscious. It is a historical determinism, and it just don't work. For example, Europe was mostly a constant war between states, but after WWII it managed to come to EU. No more wars between European countries. Or U.S. was a country of slavers and racists, and it managed to change itself. It is still not perfect, as I hear, but at least there are no more slavery or segregation, and racism is not accepted anymore.

The long gone history of a country is not a something that should be allowed to determine its modern narratives. You shouldn't forget your history, but there are limits you shouldn't cross. When I hear arguments going back for centuries, it is a red flag for me. It is most likely a propaganda.

Psychologists talk about two common failing of their clients. People often fixate over the past or they fixate over the future, while forgetting about the present. The healthy approach is to keep a good balance between the past, the future, and the present, with a strong accent on the present. The history determinism reminds me a lot of the over-fixation on the past, and propaganda actively tries to unsettle balances in people's minds and fixate them on anything but the present.

It feels like there’s a flaw in your argument somewhere. Your thesis is historical determinism doesn’t work and therefore using it as an argument for political violence is flawed. …But the fact remains that political violence does work and we expect it to work. For a current example, see the bombing of Iran to effect regime change.

Back to the argument that historical determinism is flawed…

I think it’s very reasonable to say that it happened in the past, therefore it probably will happen in the future. That’s the basis for pretty much any kind of prediction.

If you want to argue against historical determinism, you have to make the specific argument for why the current state is different enough that we can’t use the past to predict the future.

> at least there are no more slavery or segregation, and racism is not accepted anymore.

That’s just an example of American propaganda

> it would lead to conclusions like: it is impossible for us to build an environmentally conscious society because we come here by being environmentally unconscious

No. My logic applied here would imply that environtal unconsciousness can produce results becuase we got here by being environmentally unconscious. And that is true, burning coal for energy, while unsustainable, does produce results. Youll get energy, on demand, in a controlled manner.

Now, we should be careful doing it, but if you go to an amazonian tribesperson and yell at them for burning wood for a fire, becaise solar panels exist, then thats doesnt make complete sense

And sustains this "democracy"

Political violence is wielded against dissidents in the United States constantly. Another way to think of this is that a government that resorts to political violence against its own citizens is not a democracy.

Yes, exactly. One of the definitions of a State is that it's the organization holding the monopoly on legitimate use of violence.

When a State becomes undemocratic, it can more easily wield that violence against its own people. Part of the founding ideals of the US is the hope that the people would oust such a State, explicitly through the threat and application of violence if necessary, thus the second amendment.

Our current President disagrees and has pardoned political violence. Take it up with him.

sure it is. what a ridiculous comment. go read how this country was formed, or how the civil war was resolved, or...

you can disagree that this was necessary, which I'd agree with.

Without political violence, the USA would not exist in any form

Tell that to the parisians.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp84sRpM1Js

An election is two (or more) armies going to the ballot box to see who has more numbers. Nothing more.

Political violence created and has sustained democracy, democracy is what happens when the violence fails and violence is what happens when the democracy fails.

America was built with violence, what makes you think that violence will not be this year's theme? People are tired

I agree. Is the US still a democracy, or already an oligarchy?

This is the point.

You can't call yourself a democracy just because we can change the colour of the same bus every 3 to 4 years

The more we treat it like a democracy, the more democratic it is. The more we treat it like an oligarchy, the less democratic it is.

Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat.

> Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat

Not playing at all makes you easier to beat still. Anyone pining for civil war should vacation in a war zone first. It’s difficult to encapsulate the privilege of peace until it’s been lost.

What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti?

> What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti?

Keep pushing your state investigators. Work to flip the House. And keep protesting and disrupting the browncoats.

Alex Pretti did more to stop ICE than anyone e.g. killing an individual ICE agent would do.

I am a resident of the Twin Cities and I agree wholeheartedly with this perspective. I found reading the book Waging A Good War very educational about the deliberate, strategic use of nonviolence by the American Civil Rights Movement and its ultimate triumph as a means to win support and achieve social change. It was a clear and inspiring parallel for me during the worst times of this year so far.

I appreciate and support you. If I can help, let me know how to contact you.

Brownshirts. I believe "browncoats" refers to a now-extinct space opera fandom from a few decades ago.

Firefly?

That's the one! Space oat opera, I suppose I should have said.

Good grief, I wonder if it's held up. Oh, early Whedon, it's sure to have that "creepier than Tarantino" vibe at times, but maybe it'd be an interesting rewatch. Seeing a young Nathan Fillion is its own reward, certainly.

Civil war or getting screwed by elites aren't the only two options. That's a false dichotomy.

> Civil war or getting screwed by elites aren't the only two options. That's a false dichotomy

I completely agree. But political violence increasingly polarises the outcomes to those two. (The elites can buy gunmen faster than you or I can.)

California has a referendum system. Get an AI measure on the ballot. Companies that are doing the things Anthropic got fired for refusing to provide are banned from doing business in the State of California. (Or with the State. Find a balance that gets the votes.)

You'd think so, but increasingly a larger and larger section of the population does not think so. https://www.npr.org/2025/10/01/nx-s1-5558304/poll-political-...

Something is fundamentally broken when the sitting president of the United States pardoned thousands convicted in a court of law of attempting to use violence to achieve political ends.

No wonder people are increasingly recognizing that democracy is now broken.

But social violence is?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com