COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	gentle[s83,jmc]		Why be gentle with coercive protesters.
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
gentle[s83,jmc]		Why be gentle with coercive protesters.

	I'm as choleric as the next man, and when I see protesters
trying to deny other people's rights, e.g. to go to their work
or hear a speaker, I get angry and my thoughts run to violence.
However, my life as so far taken a course where this has always
been vicarious; I have never had my way blocked by coercive pickets
or had a speaker I wanted to hear drowned out by shouting.
However, it now occurs to me that there are often good reasons for
more tolerance than I incline to.

	The coercive protesters are almost always surrounded by
a much larger number of people who agree with their cause, or
like to think they do, but are inhibited against coercion or
violence.  Their sense of justice inhibits them more
than mere prudence.  However, this sense of justice is rarely
complete enough to accept that their more violent colleagues
deserve rough treatment.  Psychologically they need an excuse
to join the coercive or violent behavior.  Rough treatment,
even deserved rough treatment of other people, will often
radicalize them.  Humans are rather inhibited against violence
and often need war dances and other rituals before indulging
in it.

	Now this objection to treating coercive protesters roughly
is merely strategic.  Should the above considerations not apply in
some situation,
then I'm all for giving them what they deserve.  However, there is
an additional principle of de-escalation.  It is the principle of
half an eye for an eye and half a tooth for a tooth.  Or perhaps
a tooth for every other tooth, etc.  This principle does not apply
in case of war, where the object is not to just to retaliate for
wrongs done, but to destroy the enemy's power to do
harm and to coerce him into surrender.  Even then it is often
better to settle for less than total victory.