Please critique.
Humans act with the purpose of satisyfing his or her needs and wants. In order to satisfy these needs and wants individuals may need or want to utilize goods. When two or more individuals need or want to utilize the same good (at the same time) in order to satisfy his or her individual needs or wants conflict is created.
Since the individuals involved in the conflict cannot utilize the good in order to satisfy their individual needs or wants, they are incentivised to solve the conflict or else they might experience consequenses such as anxiety, pain or perhaps even death. Conflict can also arise under different circumstances or perhaps by accident when individuals act. This is something that individuals cannot always control, however what individuals often can control is whether or not to solve the conflict and the method used to solve it.
In order to solve the conflict all individuals involved must first recognize the existence of the conflict then approve of a solution, or else the conflict cannot be considered solved. However, if one does not voice their objection to the solution during the negotiations one implicitly approves of the solution. If the conflict is not completely solved it will arise again, sooner or later. Since all individuals involved in the conflict must approve of the solution to it, there cannot be any participant who is forced to accept a solution which this person does not approve of. Such a scenario would also not solve the conflict and would ensure that the conflict would arise again. One cannot solve a conflict by using violence, because this solution is not often approved by all involved (if it is, it has first been approved of peacefully) and the results of the method being used is more conflict. Although, if one individual involved in a conflict is being attacked or aggressed against by another individual involved in the same conflict, the person attacked may very well defend him- or herself since the aggressor has expressed his or her preferred solution to the conflict.
Once a conflict has been solved peace is established.
This is the goal of many (political) philosophies, although they all have different methods of reaching it and present different conflicts which needs to be solved in order to achieve peace. These conflicts are all caused by other individuals or groups of individuals, referred to as the state, the government, politicians, capitalists/corporatists, "robber barons", monopolists, abusive parents, etcetera. What all these creators of conflict have in common is that they are authorities with little to no (subjective) incentive to solve the conflicts they create by their interactions with other individuals. This is because they suffer little to no consequense whether or not they solve the conflicts they create. However, their actions might not create conflicts with all individuals with whom they interact with and the conflicts are experienced subjectively. Therefore, any action performed in order to solve a percieved conflict might be considered by other individuals to be not a solution to a conflict, but rather a creator of conflict. Such a scenario can be observed when the actions of an interventionist government is seen both as a solution and as an aggression by different individuals.
From this one can conclude that many individuals experience different social conflicts and a single authority or governmental body is incapable of achieving peace through its actions. The only way to peace is for the previously mentioned authorities to gain an incentive to solve the conflicts they create. These incentives are created if they should experience consequenses of their actions and unwillingness to solve the conflicts they create. This scenario can only be accomplished once these authorities and their positions are exposed to competition from other individuals who creates less conflicts or provides better solutions to existing ones.
What one also can conclude is that force or violence are not permanent solutions to conflicts and are often sources of conflicts. It is therefore impossible to achieve peace by using these methods and actions. One can then derive a non-aggression axiom, which will have to be followed in order to achieve peace.
just a quick thought
One cannot solve a conflict by using violence, because this solution is not often approved by all involved (if it is, it has first been approved of peacefully)
I disagree. I'm going to use the scenario of men fighting over women b/c this is a common conflict. If I beat you up for trying to hit on my girl and you don't do it anymore, and you don't retaliate at a later time then the conflict is resolved. We don't have to have a contract/agreement before hand in order for physical intimidation to work, often times there is not one. Also, check out the Theory of Conflict thread.
Adding a title or purpose would be nice. After all, how do I know that I will be spending a productive 7 minutes of my life reading and 15 minutes responding?
If the other person uses physical force when he is hitting on your girl you may solve the conflict on her behalf. However, if the other person is just talking to and flirting with your girl and does not know of your relationship and you come up and punch this person in the face, this will cause other or new conflicts. Perhaps the person won't punch you back, but perhaps you would be verbally confronted, ostracised or thrown out from the property on which you performed the action, by the person you punched or other bystanders.
How about: "The origins of conflict and the state's inability to establish peace."?
My thoughts on the subject are here.
Clayton -
There are numerous things that could happen. Yes violence more than likely will spur more violence but it doesn't neccesarily need a peaceful pre-determined agreement in order to work as you stated. you're forgetting spontaneous events and the power of physical intimidation. You need to show how it can't work without a pre-determined agreement. I'm actually starting to think that violence is the base of conflict resolution, the more primal form.
You need to show how it can't work without a pre-determined agreement. I'm actually starting to think that violence is the base of conflict resolution, the more primal form.
Exactly. The reason for writing an agreement ahead of time is to avoid a standoff situation where the highest argument each side can bring to the table is "well, I think I can kick your ass in a fight." But where is the impetus to demand prior agreements and contracts unless there is a very real possibility of things devolving to that "primal" level without them? I think that the State's courts - to the extent that they insulate people from the reality of conflict in the absence of any contractual agreements - reduce the demand for prior agreements before entering into business or other entanglements.
I think the biggest loss is the loss of cultural awareness... that which "everybody knows." Everybody knows if you drink alcohol and get caught driving, you'll go to jail. But the general awareness that legal protection is required before entering into a business or other relationship with someone has gone. It used to be that "everybody knows" you can't just loan your money out without a binding agreement that it will be paid back unless you're a sucker begging to be robbed. But look at the sub-prime mess and what has happened here. The "suckers" have been bailed out. Of course, they're not really the suckers because they betted they would be bailed out. This just goes to show how powerful a reality-distortion-field the State creates within the social order.
Wow - what a great post, Clayton.
Favorited.
second that very sound reasoning.
I concede that I might have expressed myself insufficiently with the term "peacefully", since that would refer to a state of mutual harmony. Although violence might be agreed to as a solution under a state of mutual disharmony aswell.
Consider the following scenario:
Person A bumps into person B at a bar and this causes person B to spill his or her drink.
- Person B: "Watch where you're going, asshole!".
- Person A: "I could say the same to you, you almost ruined my jacket!".
- Person B: "Do you wanna settle this outside?!".
- Person A: "All right. Outside. 5 minutes.".
In this scenario I would consider the use of violence to be a legitimate solution to the conflict, even though it was agreed upon in a state of mutual disharmony. However, the solution was agreed upon through non-violent communication and perhaps I should add this criteria to my original text (peacefully or through non-violent communication).
I agree with you on the origins of conflict, and Clayton makes a great point about the states interference especially in it's ability to distort reality (our customs). Again, I don't think each conflict is going to have an agreement before hand. Think of two people in the forest fighting over a shelter, if one kills the other then the conflict is solved. One party may not want to fight at all, but if both are not in agreement then violence may occur.
To add to what Clayton said about distorting reality, the state will alter customs buy using state prosecution. I may not think you wronged me by fighting with me but the gov. will still press charges against you, taking away the ability for the parties involved to set their own preferences on law.
I do not think so either, but what I do think however is that if there is not an agreement based on non-violent communication beforehand, the use of violence will not solve any conflicts or establish mutual harmony. It is more likely that the use of violence will cause new conflicts or simply leave the original conflict unsolved. If there is not an agreement based on non-violent communication and violence is used, the person attacked may defend him- or herself from the attacker.
When a conflict is solved peace/mutual harmony is established. If one person involved in a conflict is killed there cannot be peace/mutual harmony and the conflict is not solved, it is merely ended. In order for the people involved in a conflict to gain incentive to solve the conflict through non-violent communication and to avoid a situation of "might makes right" they must negotiate on equal terms, which one could use as an argument for people to bear arms.