On Violence and the Proper Usage Thereof

First of all- I've got a much wider view of what violence is than most people. I suspect this is because I am autistic, as well as the fact that I have a history of being outside society.

So for me to see a layoff, a firing, a foreclosure, an arrest, or taking somebody's children or a portion of their life away, as a violent act, is not unreasonable to me. Seeing somebody come to another country illegally for work, or investing in another country in an exploitive way, is also a violent act.

And while I am completely pro-life in most situations, I do see self-defense as at least a valid and legitimate, if not "best way of dealing with the problem" response to hostile intentions.

To that end, personally as well as on a social level, I try to hold to St. Augustine of Hippo's original Just War Theory:

1. A just war must be fought on your own territory against a hostile invader. NO FAIR leaving your territory to take revenge on a foreigner who has retreated in good faith.
2. A just war must be a war of defense, not a war of offense, in support of your own way of life. No invasions.
3. A just war must be fought with weapons as likely to harm your own side as the other side.

Oddly enough- the Islamic Jihadi Suicide Bomber, as long as he follows the first two, is engaged in a just war.

The guys who flew the planes into the World Trade Center violated rule #1.

The United States, in invading Afghanistan and Iraq in revenge for that act, violated rule #2.

An autarky that lives in it's own borders and attacks nobody, no matter how militaristic and nationalistic, IS following the rules of a just war.

Hitler invading Poland did not.

Illegal Mexican workers are breaking #2, and invite the response of rule #1.

So maybe, that explains my more violent views to you. Or maybe not. But at least, like Ben told Charles Widmore on Lost, there are rules to the game that cannot be broken.