Can defensive political violence be justified?

[Falstaff]

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

The legal community in Western democracies possesses it, primarily, but it is also important to have a public debate about the boundaries of self-defence and necessity.

Why? Hasn't there been a debate going on for centuries already? Wouldn't it be more fruitful to talk about really new concepts like e.g. cyber self defense?

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

But remember that if there is a case of oppression where it is not possible to draw any clear conclusion, most likely because one lacks enough information about what is actually going on in the conflict, then one can not use these rules to justify militant operations.

Can you provide examples?

You're suggesting e.g. self-defence against oppressive corporate groups. You must have something in mind. And in addition, I have the feeling that you're at least touching the subject of property offense as a case of self defense here.

[Falstaff]

Andreas, I'm sorry I can't stay any longer, I'm off for cinema. I enjoyed the debate though. Take care.

[Andreas Winsnes]

In the LAW forum there are several case studies. When I started this project I had heard left-wing NGOs talk about how oppressive multinational companies are, so I started to look for cases which would prove that militant operations was justified against them, but I could not find many.

The LAW project is currently at its first stage where the first objective is to clarify whether the theory of defensive political violence actually follows logically from the mentioned classical legal defences. If it does, one should very carefully investigate case studies. But this takes a lot of research!

So even if defensive political violence is correct in theory, it can be so demanding in real life that critics will often be able to prove that a militant organisation don't have what it takes, either of intel or qualified personnel, to conduct operations in a responsible way.

Seen from this perspective, LAW may turn out to be an anti-militant project. It will be interesting to see where the better arguments lead us.

Thanks for discussion so far, Falstaff. If you got more arguments, please present them. Take care.

[OPSSG]

Edit: Nothing contained herein should be confused as me giving legal advice to anyone.

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

The LAW project is currently at its first stage where the first objective is to clarify whether the theory of defensive political violence...

Edit: Comment deleted

What are the applicable legal rules and concepts in what you have articulated thus far (because I cannot see any)?

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

If you actually study the legal rules of self-defence and necessity, you will see that they form a set of surprisingly clear premises from which, I argue, it is possible to draw logical conclusions in regard to the question about defensive political violence.

Edit: Comment deleted

At it's simplest:
-person 'A' cannot kill or attack person 'B' (an officer of 'XYZ'),
-just because of an alleged prior illegality committed by XYZ Company.

This is because in most legal systems, for an act to be deemed illegal (and therefore subject to legal sanctions) in a court of law, the state (as prosecutor) usually carries the burden of proof to show (with evidence admissible in a court of law) that a crime was committed. And even if XYZ Company is proven in a court of law to have committed a crime, how can you justify the attack or killing of B by A? The issue of who is responsible for the illegal act by XYZ Company is another issue.

Edit: Comment deleted

[Andreas Winsnes]

IMO, your posts and blog do not contain any legal concepts that I can understand.

If you are legally qualified person, you should understand the legal rules of self-defence and necessity. The concepts are explained in the LAW forum.

Let me explain the flaw in your misguided 'defensive political violence' doctrine.

At it's simplest:
- person 'A' cannot kill or attack person 'B' (an officer of 'XYZ')
- just because of an alleged prior illegality committed by XYZ Company.

This is because in most legal systems, for an act to be deemed illegal (and therefore subject to legal sanctions) in a court of law, the state (as prosecutor) usually carries the burden of proof to show (with evidence admissible in a court of law) that a crime was committed. And even if XYZ Company is proven in a court of law to have committed a crime, how can you justify the attack or killing of B by A?

The point is not "prior" but during a criminal attack. If a group of people are being unlawfully attacked, then other people can use proportional physical force to prevent the assault on their behalf as long as the attack lasts. After the attack has stopped, the use of force in self-defence must also stop.

Then it is up to a court to decide if those who used physical force had the right to do so in accordance with the legal rule of self-defence.

I find it interesting that you prefer to simply stop a discussion instead of refuting the arguments I present. Your approach makes it seem like you don't have any valid counter-arguments.

[OPSSG]

Edit: Nothing contained herein should be confused as me giving legal advice to anyone.

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

If you are legally qualified person, you should understand the legal rules of self-defence and necessity. The concepts are explained in the LAW forum.

Edit: Comment deleted

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

I find it interesting that you prefer to simply stop a discussion instead of refuting the arguments I present. Your approach makes it seem like you don't have any valid counter-arguments.

Edit: Comment deleted

It is unlikely that anything I say will change your mind.

[Andreas Winsnes]

After I wrote my thesis, I got offered a job teaching philosophy of law at the Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway. I have also written about the legal rules of self-defence and necessity in the most respected, conservative newspaper in my country:

Mer målrettet overvåking- Meninger - Kronikker - Aftenposten.no

Grand Danois can understand Norwegian since he is Danish, so he can read the article.

As I see it you have a defective understanding of the legal rule of self-defence.

Then I will sincerely appreciate it if you can correct this misunderstanding, especially since I might one day take the job at the University of Oslo and consequently mislead the students there. I don't want that.

Have to go now, but I will respond later if you choose to continue the debate. Thanks!

[OPSSG]

Edit: Nothing contained herein should be confused as me giving legal advice to anyone.

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

...After the attack has stopped, the use of force in self-defence must also stop.

Edit: Comment Deleted

Originally Posted by Andreas Winsnes

Then I will sincerely appreciate it if you can correct this misunderstanding, especially since I might one day take the job at the University of Oslo and consequently mislead the students there. I don't want that.

Have to go now, but I will respond later if you choose to continue the debate. Thanks!

Edit: Comment Deleted

Please have a look at this article on "The Law Relating to Self Defence" by Eric Baskind for a British common law perspective, as a starting point for further study. Try to understand the common law approach and the balance it tries to strike before dismissing it.

With that I would like to conclude my remarks to you.

[kato]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

which reminds me of my dreadful time doing political work in the students' union and parliament at my university.

Where was that? Because around the student assembly people i know, it's usually the anarchosyndicalist groups that are going strong with the theory, not the leftists per se (which are pretty much only represented by SDS and the JuSos nowadays) - even if people, especially from the conservative side, tend to lump them all together; there is a distinct difference. Even among the leftist groups around, you'll mostly find trotskists and perhaps a few maoists here and there, not that many classic marxists (though they do exist). That's presuming it's a student assembly that hasn't been taken over by a traditional chapter of the AntiImp or AntiD chapters (know a couple of those too).

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Oh and can we please leave the legacy political philosophers where they belong- on dusty shelves.

Aww, but they're so much fun. Ever read any Mikhail Bakunin? He did state a lot of what you're saying there in his criticism of marxism.

[Falstaff]

[

Originally Posted by kato

Where was that? Because around the student assembly people i know, it's usually the anarchosyndicalist groups that are going strong with the theory, not the leftists per se (which are pretty much only represented by SDS and the JuSos nowadays) - even if people, especially from the conservative side, tend to lump them all together; there is a distinct difference. Even among the leftist groups around, you'll mostly find trotskists and perhaps a few maoists here and there, not that many classic marxists (though they do exist). That's presuming it's a student assembly that hasn't been taken over by a traditional chapter of the AntiImp or AntiD chapters (know a couple of those too).

As this is too detailed and presumably a littlebit OT I'll PM you.

Originally Posted by kato

Aww, but they're so much fun. Ever read any Mikhail Bakunin? He did state a lot of what you're saying there in his criticism of marxism.

You gotta be kidding me. See, after only 2 years of studying philosophy and english I decided to press on with mechanical engineering as I couldn't stand reading this stuff... Never read Bakunin though.

[Andreas Winsnes]

We have different legal training and there may be significant differences in our legal training and legal traditions, so our starting point for analysis maybe very different.

Please have a look at this article on "The Law Relating to Self Defence" by Eric Baskind for a British common law perspective, as a starting point for further study. Try to understand the common law approach and the balance it tries to strike before dismissing it.

I have read the article and the main difference, as I can see it, is that Norwegian law allows so-called preventive self-defence. I write about this here

I have talked to several professors of law regarding defensive political violence, but the problem is that they have so far not presented arguments which refute its main principles. That is why I have started this debate to get more counter-arguments on the table. Such an approach is in full compliance with the discourse ethics of Habermas.