Rhino: Why self-defense is not violence, from a Quaker’s perspective.

In the pre revolutionary days of the new world, William Penn colonized the Pennsylvania colony with an ideological priority on property rights and non-violence. He valued property rights so much that he honored the “day and a half march” agreement that he had with the Indians. The agreement stated that William Penn had the right to purchase any land within the radius that a man could travel in a day and a half at some predetermined sum of goods. He did not violate this agreement, for he was a man of principle, however, he was quite clever. He sent a team to clear a path and sent the most skilled and fit travelers on the task to maximize the radius within a day and a half travel.

Schemer, shyster, whore … you decide.

With respect to violence, William Penn was part of the reformation movement against the church. One of his big issues was violence. He felt that violence was never justified including self-defense. From a historical perspective, one can see why such an ideological product had evolved out of a church that was a primary participant in the crusades and was an instrumental power in political movements that had no limits on the level of justified persecution.

As a result of this creed by Penn, in the summer of 1755 the French and Indian forces found that they met no resistance when they raided homesteads, mutilated families, and destroyed crops and livestock. These uncontested battles lead to the escalation of what is now known as the French and Indian War.

I would argue that if self-defense is violence then non-violence in the face of violence is a moral hazard.

I am a big pacifist, and to this day in my life I have never engaged in or supported violence against any individual, unless you consider self defense violence. (Self defense of self, family, and property)

Words mean things, so make sure you are clear about what you are saying and be able to clarify things if need be.

The result of the Penn philosphy: The coloy over time had come to grips with the fact that self defense was not violence and was instrumental in the success of the American Revolution.

The message of this post is quite important. Jiminy Cricket's post below shows me that I must clarify.

The two key lessons from this post:

1. A moral hazard cannot be over come by an individual's moral standard.

2. The pendalum can swing irrationally in the opposite direction, therefore, do not ever delegate your idividual point of view to a third party.