To Mr. Dale Wharton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FAQ on nonviolence as political philosophy

    My response to your posting.

    I have scanned the entire post, but studied only
    the first two sections.  Please accept this partial
    response. Anyway, It contains my principal point
    and I look forward to the application of your
    intelligence, point of view and experience in
    furthering my understanding.  It may boil down
    to the fact that you are a philosopher and I
    pretend.

Nonviolence as a Political Philosophy FAQ
by Howard Ryan <[log in to unmask]>

1.  What is nonviolence?

In its common usage, nonviolence refers to political protest that does
not use violence.  In this article such protest-e.g.  marches, strikes,
boycotts, sit-ins-will be referred to as nonviolent action.

In a second usage, nonviolence is a political philosophy professed by
such figures as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.  This FAQ is
concerned with nonviolence in its philosophical or theoretical sense.
People who engage in nonviolent action do not necessarily adhere to
nonviolent philosophy.

    I would alter your text to state 'People who engage in nonviolent
    action and speak the rhetoric of nonviolence ...' in order to
    include those are not non-violence believers and adherents,
    but have a political agenda to further. For example, to convince
    the convincable to be weak and to yield to the strong (who,
    incidentally, are they, and are in power.

An adherent of philosophical nonviolence has a more encompassing
commitment to nonviolent social change.

    ...and may be freer of political agendas but may be more
    easily dominated.  Non-violence may also be considered the
    device of last resort when faced with intolerable but truly
    insurmountable power.

2.  How does nonviolence differ from pacifism?

Nonviolence shares with pacifism a general rejection of violence.
Possibly as an ideology.  The distinction is that, while pacifism may be
defined as simply a principled opposition to violence, nonviolence
involves an additional set of beliefs.  Among those additional beliefs is
the advocacy of social action for peace and justice.  Many pacifists are
of course deeply committed to social action.  But pacifism as a term does
not imply a social action agenda, while nonviolence does imply this.

    More simply and, I believe, more accurately put, a
    pacifist seeks peace while a non violence advocate
    seeks achievement of whatever by non-violent means.
    So, a pacifist may use violence to achieve peace, but
    a non-violence advocate will endure failure in his
    agenda if the only alternative is violence..

    The philosophy of non-violence can be promulgated by
    tyrants to assist in pacifying the people. They may even
    confuse the two philosophies for this purpose.

    I believe that, as a pacifist, I can state the following principle:
    'It is wrong to acquire property belonging to another by
    means of force or deceit and it is right to defend your
    property by means of force and deceit.'  It makes a lot
    of sense to use negotiation and exchange first, but when
    that fails ...

Thanks for your attention.

Don Brayton