What is the superior philosophy in regards to the use of violence?

anything involving hobbes

it was more than mere tactics, it was the deliberate targeting of the economy supporting the confederate war machine. This was a pretty significant break from the machismo of Napoleonic warfare which demanded that men surge forth in great frontal assaults towards one another because it proved to be a particularly bad tactic when fighting with civil war era technology (and an even worse tactic when fighting with WWI era technology.)

Sherman realized that the quickest way to end the war was not continuously butting heads with Robert E. Lee, but to attack the fields supplying his troops with food and the foundries supplying them with rifles and ammunition, and to completely devastate the tax base fueling the entire enterprise.

And the other really important half of this coin is Ulysses S. Grant keeping the heat on Richmond and forcing Lee into a protracted defensive posture defending it, and then grinding down his army in a grueling war of attrition.

But the problem with tit-for-tat is that in everyone's version of the story *they* were the one who was originally wronged and all of their efforts have been in self-defense. Even the Nazis justified themselves in this matter. So it really becomes a case of there NOT being a morally justifiable reason for violence because violence begets more violence like a virus spreading from person to person. One could make a compelling argument for defending your property against a home invader, but this is an extremely rare exception to the normal, every day benefit of fighting with lawyers instead of mercenaries.

An unavoidable nescecity

Probably something that erases our delusions about it.

>Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

small army

The supreme art of war is to win without fighting.

Max Stirner

Breddy much everything is violence t. hairy clitoris

lex talionis

or

'eye for an eye'

A lot of people misunderstand this value, it's not if he hits me I will hit him back - it's if he takes something from me i will inflict the exact damage back upon him. If he kills my wife I will kill his and do no more, if he steal $1000 I will steal $1000 back.

An eye for an eye does not leave the whole world blind, Ghandi was a fucking idiot.

Legitimizing vengeance as a form of justice leads to more vengeance.

Not to mention: if he has no wife, you cannot take his eye for your eye. You can bullshit some equivalent, but it will not be an even punishment to the crime. And that is injustice.

...

>Legitimizing vengeance as a form of justice leads to more vengeance.
>literally misunderstanding the point.

It was the Roman shits who ruined this value and lead to monetary compensation instead of vengeance. Monetary compensation leads people to be more violent, are you trying to say otherwise? What is stopping a rich man from committing crimes when all he has to do is pay for said crimes? When all is said and done how is it a work-able solution when the rich man barely loses any of his wealth? Vengeance makes people actually fearful and think about the things they do - not just poor people.

I mean that really is a backwards scenario, don't you think? People are literally free to commit a crime, so long as you are willing to do the time, which a lot of people obviously are, would they be willing to 'do the time' if doing the time constituted vengeance upon the criminal? I really do not think so.

use it when you can gain from it.

Can you give me an example of a tit?

Im a southerner and i agree with shermans tactics. End shit as quickly as possible regardless of morals (within reason).
However, i personally wouldnt commit any acts in the name of brevity because i dont want to go to hell. :)

>It was the Roman shits who ruined this value and lead to monetary compensation instead of vengeance.
Yup. And it was the vast bulk of humanity who agreed that the Roman system, however oppressive and corrupt, was preferable to living in decentralized raiding culture where neighbors were allowed to prey on one another.

>Monetary compensation leads people to be more violent, are you trying to say otherwise?
Haha no, it puts people on their best behavior, because now they're worried about being sued.

> What is stopping a rich man from committing crimes when all he has to do is pay for said crimes?
There's this wacky new thing the kids are doing called "prison".

>When all is said and done how is it a work-able solution when the rich man barely loses any of his wealth?
Nobody is suggesting that the system doesn't favor the wealthy, but raiding culture favors them even worse, because justice in those systems favors those with the biggest gang.

>Vengeance makes people actually fearful and think about the things they do - not just poor people.
No, it leads to bitter and lasting family feuds and endless cycles of vengeance-inspired bloodletting.