Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYV. ViolenceAbout the dicey topic of using violence Popper pointed out: 253“There is only one further use of violence in political quarrelswhich I should consider justified. I mean the resistance, once democracyhas been attained, to any attack (whether from within orwithout the state) against the democratic constitution and the use ofdemocratic methods. Any such attack, especially if it comes from thegovernment in power, or if it is tolerated by it, should be resisted byall loyal citizens, even to the use of violence.”In this point I no longer agree with Karl Popper, because even if resistanceis justified, I am still strictly against violence, and this for thefollowing reasons:1. On principle: violent resistance leads to even more counter-violenceby the state and is therefore counterproductive.2. On morals: One cannot convincingly fight the misuse of governmentalpower, which itself is violence, with counter-violence.3. In most cases violence strikes innocent bystanders, as was visible inthe case of the peace and ecological movement. Victims of acts oftrespassing and coercion were at best some subordinate governmentemployees or even noninvolved third persons, and the largest groupof victims of this violence doubtlessly were policemen as the whippingboys of the nation.4. The use of violence leads to the rejection of those using violence andthus also of their concerns by the populations, hence the exact oppositeof what one tries to achieve.5. When using violence, it is impossible to maintain the principle ofproportionality, because what kind of act of violence would, for example,be justified to punish a judge in a lynch justice manner forsending a dissident to prison for several months or years?6. In a state under the rule of law, the state’s monopoly of the use offorce is too important a principle to be undermined, because in sucha case chaos and anarchy loom as the last consequences.7. As already mentioned, it is debatable anyway, whether judges andstate attorneys imprisoning dissidents are criminally liable, becauseon the one hand they are under a kind of duress, for they would exposethemselves to prosecution for violating the law in case of an253 Ibid., p. 151f.204