Violence is the Last Resort of the Incompetent

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". This is a quote by Salvor Hardin, a character in Isaac Asimov's Foundation. Salvor Hardin uses this saying to mean that violence is such a useless option that only the incompetent would use it, and even they would only use it as their last resort. He feels that the incompetent are eventually forced to resort to violence because a better solution remains outside of their grasp. -- (Discussiof this quote on on Everything(2) http://everything2.com/ from user Lintilla.)

Salvor Hardin (b. December 23, 19,507 C.E., Terminus City; d. 19,571) was one of the greatest mayors ever to rule Terminus, well-known for his masterful manipulation of foreign affairs and long-time record of five terms as mayor. While mayor, he attended the first Seldon recording in the Time Vault, revealing the unimportance of the Encyclopedia; in the resulting confusion, he overthrew the ruling council of the time and took power. When Anacreon set a military base up on Terminus, he pitted the Four Kingdoms of the region against each other, establishing a balance of power that forced the removal of the Anacreon and discouraged any further encroachment upon Terminus. To further pacify the region, he developed a religion which viewed the superior technology of the Foundation as magic, and Terminus as a holy land. When Anacreon threatened again using a recovered imperial cruiser, he used this with great effectiveness to incite mutiny among the believers among the crew. This religion proved highly useful to Foundation control of the Periphery, until the time of Hober Mallow, eight decades later.
Hardin is also well known for his many sayings, his favorite being, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."   -- http://asimov.wikia.com/wiki/Salvor_Hardin

I was 18 when I read Foundation. I was visiting a friend of mine at MIT and a buddy of his who looked vaguely like me gave me his student ID so I could attend an Isaac Asimov lecture, "The Coming Disappearance of Women." There was a question from the audience about his view of Ayn Rand and he said, "From what little I have read, Ayn Rand stinks." I could feel the disappointment from some to many in the crowd. I, too, thoroughly enjoyed Asimov's traders and merchant princes of the Foundation.

In the story referenced above, the regent of Anacreon is attempting to force Terminus, of course. He has an imperial warship to do it with. Salvor Hardin outwits him. The regent whips out a blaster and fires at the unarmed mayor. Mallow is wearing a forcefield that absorbs the ray. Thwarted again, the regent finally turns the gun on himself.

Post 1

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 5:47am

The other side of the coin is that the violence you commit affects you.

I find it curious that Objectivists who are supposed to be self-centered and self-interested focus so much on other people, especially on this issue. "If someone threatens me ...." They attempt to deal with the "someone" rather than with the "me." You have little control over others. You have maximum effectiveness with yourself.

At what level of "feeling threatened" is physical action a requirement?

Post 2

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 8:13am

Thats an interesting point. I've been thinking of similar themes a lot lately. Is a verbal threat a valid cause for violence? Past history? I'm curious what everyone's opinions are on this.

Post 3

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 2:08pm

Then, what is The Paradox of Violence? Wither Superior Violence?

Armed cops, removed personal freedom(by being thrown in jail), the day to day business of militaries, etc., is all 'violence.'

Without enforcement, all of civilized man's laws are mere wishes on paper.

By 'violence', is what is meant 'the first use of violence?'

Or all violence?

If all violence, this sounds like utopic wishful thinking.

Paradoxically, our cvilization depends on superior violence to inhibit unchecked violence.

Crime not only pays, it pays damn well, unless a price is exacted for it.

That hasn't been unilaterally repealed, nor is it unilaterally repealable.

regards,
Fred

Post 4

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 2:33pm

It is generally understood as the initiation of violence...

Post 5

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 4:23pm

Please do be explicit about whether you mean violence at all or the initiation of violence. After all, it makes all the difference!

Post 6

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 5:08pm

Ryan,

A verbal threat to harm someone IS a form of violence, as are theft and fraud. And it is recognized as such by the law. A supreme court decision upheld that, "Get out of the car, or I'll shoot you" satisfies "intent to kill" so long as there is reason to believe that the threat is real and not a bluff. [Wikipedia article on intent]

I started thinking about that process of reasoning that goes from individual rights (moral) to a constitution (political) to law, where, when applied, the moral, legal and actual get joined. At that point in time, whatever violence is in question has already happened and it is possible to use hindsight on the facts to see when and how the victim should have acted. This process is, afterall, the way the state currently determines when to use force to lock someone up or to execute them. So what about looking at this issue from the point of the law that gets applied? Look at legal concepts for ideas on where to draw a cleaner line as to when it is reasonable to act in self-defense. (I'm using criminal law, but the concepts should be transferable to an individual under threat of violence or with the use of the military for national self-defense.)

Here are two legal concepts that can be examined: intent, and past bad acts (history of the defendant). [The following paragraph is taken from Wikipedia - bits and pieces paraphrased.]

Intent can be present in planning or in evidence of a desire to perform and act, or achieve a certain state of affairs. Sometimes it is only necessary to show a desire to perform an act even if the person has not thought through the repercussions of that act. Intent in criminal law often is linked with malice aforethought. A verbal threat could be seen as defined evidence of malice aforethought. Intent is often measured as being somewhere between harm from acting with reckless disregard for the consequences, versus wilfully, maliciously bringing about the harm. In the law they talk about direct versus oblique intent: Did the party intend a particular consequence of their action, or did they act when they foresaw the consequence, even though it wasn't their main objective.

A history of violence (past bad acts) isn't always allowed before a jury because it might predjudice them as deciders of the fact at hand. A pattern of bad acts won't settle the question before jurors, but it might go to the character of the actor - so it is of interest to us. In our case, where we are attempting to determine if and when to use force in self-defence, the character of the actor is a serious consideration. It can help to determine the likelihood of the threat being carried out, it can help determine the nature of the intent, and it might help gauge the severity of the harm that might result.

More and more I find that the hundreds of years of thinking in the field of the law, all of the efforts to isolate the different principles that should be examined when applying ethics/laws to a given act, is a good source for inspiration for other areas.

Post 7

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 5:19pm

Yes, Steve, (thanks for saving me the trouble,) and it is for this exact reason that we are immediately justified in taking out the Iranian government.

Post 8

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 5:22pm

I hold to the idea you're saying regarding verbal threats as violence. I'm just interested to hear others thoughts on the matter. As to the past history thing, I understand why its not always allowed in criminal proceedings. However, out in life It seems like a broader approach is advised. A known violent offender or molester better be flying a white flag around myself or my loved ones. I can't imagine reacting any other way to potential threats, but thats just me.

Post 9

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 6:29pm

Ryan,

I might not have been clear, but I pointed out that the jurors have a different role - deciders of fact - so they shouldn't be looking a past bad acts.

But the rest of us would be fools not to look at past bad acts. I said, "where we are attempting to determine if and when to use force in self-defence, the character of the actor is a serious consideration. It can help to determine the likelihood of the threat being carried out, it can help determine the nature of the intent, and it might help gauge the severity of the harm that might result."

Ted,

I had Iran in mind when I was writing that. There are times when self-defense can require a preemptive strike. But justifying such a strike as self-defense is much more difficult. And we have a lot of control over what kind of military strike to do, what kind of warnings to give the world, the population of Iran, and the government of Iran before striking. We don't have as much time left as we once had and we have to judge what is a safe margin of error so as to not wait to late. We may not be required by any outside body or law to do anything, but we are morally required to everything that is practical and reasonable to avoid or minimize the deaths to non-combatants.

Post 10

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 6:50pm

That we would be externally justified in doing a thing does not necessarily mean that we should. We would still have to prove it to ourselves.

Post 11

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 7:17pm

Steve,

Good post, 6. Regarding bad past acts, I think there are criminal cases where such information is admissible (or I hope so). Certainly, in cases where evidence is circumstantial, but strong, the key determinant may be how does the defendant think and act. If you will, I think that makes up part of a defendant's motivations or motive, and is thus a salient piece of evidence.

Ted,

I think having justification to act does not logically imply a need to act immediately. Those in position of authority to act must be experienced and clever enough to know when it is efficacious to act - brinksmanship is an absolutely necessary skill for a world leader dealing with any crisis. Being too quick on the trigger can be as damaging as being too slow on the trigger.

Consider how, despite the fact that Hamas broke the cease fire and fired first on Israel, that it is Israel receiving the most condemnation for their very well justified retaliation. The relative damage to Israel is small, but Hamas' attack removes any possible claim that Gaza is anything other than a terrorist state, immediately validating Israels efforts now to go in and completely eradicate the Hamas organization. Had Israel struck first, even the US would've suffered to support their actions.

jt

Post 12

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 7:21pm

Michael,

Read and enjoyed all the Foundation books, even the later ones written by the three b's.

jt

Post 13

Thursday, January 1, 2009 - 7:45pm

Jay, I said that we are immediately justified in acting, not that we are justified in acting immediately. Not that I deny the second, but that was not my claim. Please read the words I write, so I need not repeat them. :)

Post 14

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 10:41am

Michael Marotta:

I find it curious that Objectivists who are supposed to be self-centered and self-interested focus so much on other people, especially on this issue. "If someone threatens me ...." They attempt to deal with the "someone" rather than with the "me." You have little control over others. You have maximum effectiveness with yourself.

You confuse "self-interested" with "solipsistic". They are not the same.

Post 15

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 11:54am

Michael,

You said, "I find it curious that Objectivists who are supposed to be self-centered and self-interested focus so much on other people, especially on this issue. "If someone threatens me ...." They attempt to deal with the "someone" rather than with the "me." You have little control over others. You have maximum effectiveness with yourself."

Putting "self-interested" and "self-centered" together in that sentence is very peculiar, unless you have decided that you are no longer an advocate of rational egoism.

I think it should be said that the Objectivist (or anyone, other than a pacifist) is not dealing with an attacker, so much as dealing with their own well-being - which at the moment is threatened by that other. To the degree that they are rational they will attend to all important aspects of their safety - moving themselves out of striking distance, taking a defensive stance, determining what to do in the future that might prevent or mitigate that danger, etc.

Your sentence takes the focus away from the source of the problem - the initiator of violence. Yet the control that is needed to be safe depends upon examining the initiator. Your sentence implies a peculiar kind of self-made blindness - as if danger could come from an attacker, but the attacker isn't to be mentioned or seen or considered.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/02, 2:11pm)

Post 16

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 6:58pm

Ted,

Mea culpa, but I had thought you were also implying immediate action. Correction noted.

: )

jt

Post 17

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 8:59pm

[ ]

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/03, 12:54am)

Post 18

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 9:13pm

Mindy: "Please do be explicit about whether you mean violence at all or the initiation of violence. After all, it makes all the difference!"

The question is do you respond to force with force, not do you use violence, or isn't starting to use violence an admission of...something.

Post 19

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 12:05am