Is Force the Same as Violence?
There is obfuscation and confusion perpetuating society regarding what force means and how that differs from violence. This confusion leads to an inhibition and pacification of the self-defense principle to stand up and defend oneself or others in accordance with Moral Truth/Law and Justice.
What is Force?
- strength, power or energy
- exerting force against something that resists (adversary)
Yes, force is used in violence, but there is a difference.
What is Violence?
- force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing
- unjust exercise of power
We can force another against their will/volition, forcibly hurt them, take from them, etc. We can also apply force to a ball and make it move, build a house, etc. We can also apply and use the force of our voice to speak, to argue, to be an adversary in conversation, to oppose what someone says, but this is not violence either
Notice this basic difference?
The difference is one is violent, against someone’s volition, making it a violation. Force in itself is not violent. It's just a force that creates a change in position, state, etc. This is how the universe exists. Without force, there is nothing. There are forces at work everywhere. None of them are violent. They are not agents capable of creating evil, immorality or violence through force. Force is how we move our bodies, how we get any work done, etc.
Note the root of violence and violation, viol. Viole is rape in French.
The Latin word violare means violate, dishonor; outrage. Violare is in turn derived from the Latin (and Italian, Portuguese, Spanish) word vis force, strength.
Force is not derived from violence. Violence is derived from force. This is important to understand. Violence requires force, force does not require violence.
If someone initiates violence against another out of the blue, for no reason, they are acting against Moral Law, and they are acting in violence, against another's volition.
When we use force against another who is violating (i.e. violence) another being's volition and rights, we are not being violent; we are correcting a violent act against Moral Law, with the use of force. We are indeed "exertion against something that resists", the one who is violating may indeed resist being stopped, and this may also result in "damaging" effects. But we are not violating the violence (evil) with violence, we are stopping the violence with force.
Using force to stop violence is a just use of power, energy, and strength. The initiator of violence using unjust (against Moral Law) force is the one violating and being violent. The initiator of violence is in violation of the principle of nonviolence and nonaggression. Using force to stop that violence is not violence, but right-action based in Moral Law to stop a wrong-doing from continuing unabated.
It does matter who initiates the first act which they did not have a right to take. They are the initiators of the violence, the undue use of force, violating someone else's free will and volition to not be harmed. The "Sacred Feminine" nonviolent nonaggression principle is being crushed, destroyed and broken, and the "Sacred Masculine" force to stand up, act and defend the innocent needs to step in to set right-action into manifestation and enact justice in the world. When someone violates someone else’s rights, they lose their own rights. If you choose to violate someone’s Natural Law rights, you are giving up your own rights under Natural Law.
"Sorcerers", dominators and controllers don’t want people to step up and physically defend themselves or others against being violated. They want to dominate the "Sacred Feminine" of nonviolence, nonaggression and peace, while also pacifying the "Sacred Masculine" of self-defense and justice.
We have state sanctioned gangster thugs (police) using violence against those who exercise their right to free speech. This is the case at the G-8 and G 20 summit protests. There are people who protest the political scheming of the power structures in the world, and they are harassed, pepper sprayed, tasered or beaten for exercising the force of their voice and speaking information that other people should know about
We have failed in our personal responsibility. We have not morally educated our young, so there happens to be criminal tendencies that develop in various people and then we demand a controller class to clean things up in society because we don’t want to handle it ourselves. We have handed over our personal responsibility, abdicated our personal response-ability to deal with life around us, by creating institutions and forces of coercive violent control. We don’t want to deal with our own house, or be bothered and hassled by the problems around us in our society.
So... people or groups end up with imaginary rights that no one possesses. Such as stealing through taxation, with violence and coercion that gets used, due to noncompliance with taxation, or other dictates of unnecessary "laws" that are not followed. And it's all sanctioned by us through tacit acceptance into indentured servitude to being obedient to the centralized authoritarian state.
Proper education is key to prevent people from even desiring to violate Moral Law. Not the fear and desire to control everyone by having institutions of coercive control to save us from our own ignorance.
Force is voluntary and doesn't violate the volition of an innocent being, based in Moral Law: to take an action that one has the right to take because it doesn't violate the life and freedom of another being.
Violence is violates the volition of another, not based in Moral Law: to take an action one doesn't have the right to take because they are violating the life and freedom of another being.
Thank you for reading! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider:
Upvoting 
, Sharing 
and Reblogging 
below.
me for more great content to come!
Don't have a Steemit account? Please signup, it's free, and you get some free Steem $Dollars as well. Help upvote my content if you appreciate and value it (upvoting is free!).
Author: Kris Nelson / @krnel
Contact: [email protected]
Date: 2016-09-20, 6:45pm EST
Why does it have to be one or the other?
haha I get it, Vader uses both.
outstanding. I was beginning to feel like I was crazy. I have had self styled anarchists tell me this wasn't the case. the definitions are clear. thank you.
Great! Glad to help. Thanks for the feedback. Peace.
Physical love is unthinkable without violence.
What the hell are you talking about?...
this is relativist obfuscation. saying good cannot exist without evil, so, it doesn't matter which one you do. most people's moral compasses are trashed.
In essence, I believe @allmonitors means that you can't know love without hate, just as one can't know light without dark, etc.
I don't think that applies much here, though.
Sometimes, it is hard to get who started the conflict. Actually, there are even cases where the key players themselves do not remember anymore. How would you do for these (assuming the key players won't stop hurting each other)
Trace back actions in time to the original perpetrator. But, unless you can directly get back to that person, then you can;t enact retribution on their descendants. If the descendants are still violating others, then they are still creating harm and violence, and are subject to retribution and being stopped for their own actions.
I would think that one usually ends up with an escalation of violence that is very hard to stop, even from the outside. We can consider many major conflicts on Earth as examples.
This caught my attention as I was recently ruminating on the term "police force" and police violence in America. I was turning over the connotations of power with "force" and how, when applied to certain social groups, includes violence. My thoughts are not yet clear, so I am unsure this comment is clear. My goal is to share this is of great interest to me, and ask if you have any thoughts on the active relationship between force, violence and American police.
Well, the police operate under an authoritarian centralized governance that allows them to harm others and get away with it. It's an abuse of power and force as violence. If you do no harm to others, they can still poiunt a gun at you, and coerce you into a cage (prison). They are state gang thugs, like a mafia.
But force is the threat of violence a lot of times.
Why is non-aggression "feminine?" Women fight too, and their fights are worse a lot of the time!
Notice the quotes, it's not literal like you are taking it. There's nothing literally "sacred/holy" about it either... lol. Please look into symbolism of the duality of gender, i.e. masculine and feminine symbolism. Thanks.
There is usually more thought put into symbolism. I know a bunch of men that don't stand up for themselves too. It just seems like a false assumption to say: this is how men act, and this is how women act. So if a girl takes justice, then she is acting like a guy? I don't think so... I think the philosophy just needs a little work...
I just told you it's not literal. Quotes... did you even read what I said? Symbolism. Not literal genders... and yet you come back with the same fixation on male and female physical genders...
I don't understand how "masculine" is symbolic, but it doesn't have anything to do with masculinity. Sorry man! I'm just spitting out some opinions here, I don't mean to be frustrating!