J.

SANTIAGO RODRGUEZ VRTICE IIIa GEN

FINAL ASSIGNMENT / ESSAY: "THE USE OF VIOLENCE CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN ACQUIRING OR PRESERVING LIBERTY".

First of all, I want to make a correct definition of these three terms: violence, non-violence and liberty. I am discussing my points of view inside the definitions Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt. Variant uses of the term refer to the destruction of non-living objects (see property damage). Worldwide, violence is used as a tool of manipulation and also is an area of concern for law and culture who take attempts to suppress and stop it. Violence can take many forms anywhere from mere hitting between two humans where there can be bodily harm, to war and genocide where millions may die as a result. It should be noted that violence can be non-physical as well. One of the main functions of law is to regulate violence. Sociologist Max Weber stated that state power is the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force on a specific territory. Law enforcement is the main means of regulating nonmilitary violence in society. Governments regulate the use of violence through legal systems governing individuals and political authorities, including the police and military. Most societies condone some amount of police violence to maintain the status quo and enforce laws.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (USA, FBI) classifies violence resulting in homicide into criminal homicide and justifiable homicide (e.g. mainly for self defense). Instead, Nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of physical violence. As such, nonviolence is an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it. Practitioners of nonviolence may use diverse methods in their campaigns for social change, including critical forms of education and persuasion, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, and targeted communication via mass media. In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest. And these examples are mine, for demonstrating my main idea. Mahatma Gandhi led a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India win its independence in 1947. About 10 years later, Martin Luther King adopted Gandhi's nonviolent methods in his struggle to win civil rights for African Americans. Then in the 1960s Csar Chvez organized a campaign of nonviolence to protest the treatment of farm workers in California. These three leaders proved that people can bring about social change without using violence. As Chavez once explained, "Nonviolence is not inaction. It is not for the timid or the weak. It is hard work, it is the patience to win." Another recent nonviolent movement was the "Velvet Revolution", a nonviolent revolution in Czechoslovakia that saw the overthrow of the Communist government in 1989. It is seen as one of the most important of the Revolutions of 1989. The term "nonviolence" is often linked with or even used as a synonym for pacifism; however, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Pacifism denotes the rejection of the use of violence as a personal decision on moral or spiritual grounds, but does not inherently imply any inclination toward change on a sociopolitical level. Nonviolence on the other hand, presupposes the intent of (but does not limit it to) social or political change as a reason for the rejection of violence. Also, a person may advocate nonviolence in a specific context while advocating violence in other contexts. As Ghandi said: "There is nothing wrong with anger ... Simply getting it out of your system without constructively trying to find a solution to the problem doesn't help; Nonviolence can be a way of life. And Nonviolence can be a strategy. But for powerful, long-lasting change, Nonviolence as a way of life is the strategy. And in third place, Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

Individualist and liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion or coercion; A socialist perspective, on the other hand, associates liberty with equality across a broader array of societal interests. As such, a socialist redefines liberty as being connected to the reasonably equitable distribution of wealth, arguing that the unrestrained concentration of wealth (the means of production) into only a few hands negates liberty. In other words, without relatively equal ownership, the subsequent concentration of power and influence into a small portion of the population inevitably results in the domination of the wealthy and the subjugation of the poor. Thus, freedom and material equality are seen as intrinsically connected. On the other hand, the classical liberal argues that wealth cannot be evenly distributed without force being used against individuals which reduces individual liberty. John Stuart Mill, in his work, On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion. In his book, Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to having the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things. Mill offered insight into the notions of soft tyranny and mutual liberty with his harm principle. Many believe it is important to understand these concepts when discussing liberty since they all represent little pieces of the greater puzzle known as freedom. In a philosophical sense, it can be said that morality must supersede tyranny in any legitimate form of government. Otherwise, people are left with a societal system rooted in backwardness, disorder, and regression.