Is violence required to cause change?
Look around did Bush or Obama sit down and talk stuff over with Saddam? NO. They used violence to get change. Look at Libya and all the other revolutions. Violence is the only answer people. Wake up or become a slave. Violence gets attention plain and simple. You think people are going to be scared of a peaceful protest.
More things have been changed throughout history by violence then peaceful protest has ever done. The people on the other side point too Gandhi and King and say "well they did it, so it must work all the time". This stupid, naive and shows ignorance of History.
Look at the Libyan uprisings, or the what the Syrian protests have turned into. They both started out with protests, but the protesters where attacked by the Government causing countless deaths.
The only way regimes like that can fall is through revolution.
Violence is an integral part of change. Violence brings with it a resistance against it. Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr, nor the founding fathers of the U.S.A. would have fought back if not approached with violence.
In one form or another violence must be present to cause change. Whether an aggressor/oppressor uses violent means or the resisting force fights back with violence, it is always a predominant factor in change.
Violence against people I am against, but violence against private property, institutions that marginalize and the police I am all for. The police are a tool of the state to maintain a monopoly of violence on the general population. Government institutions like the Hall of Records found in every city are used to intervene in the way people interact in commerce. Private property represents the a class within society that view themselves as a privileged class in society.
Had the patriots of the revolutionary war had sit-ins and boycotts, they probably would have been shot.
Any cause, no matter how sound, how noble, how righteous, forfeits it's right to be heard, understood and hopefully acted upon when the proponents of that cause resort to acts of violence perpetrated against the innocent. The leaders of such a cause then become just common criminals who use violence as a method of control or to gain headlines for their said cause.
While violence may be necessary to bring change to a totalitarian government (such as Libya or Syria), Gandhi has shown that non-violent protest can be very effective in countries that pride themselves on their respect for their own citizens. People that want to use violence usually are just frustrated that the majority of people do not agree with their own views.
There have been countless cases, such as the Solidarity movement in Poland, Springtime in Prague, the non-violent protests led by Gandhi, Cesar Chavez's hunger strikes, etc. in which peaceful action has led to lasting change. Violence is undoubtedly sometimes the only choice, but it is not always and in all cases the only choice.
Regimes can be forced to change when:
* Peaceful protests en masse drive democratic states to change. This occurs in democratic nations all the time, even when elections are few and far apart.
* Mass resistance and labor strikes can force even oppressive states to change. This led Poland to democracy against the Soviets, and it led to change in India with Gandhi.
* People leaving a country en masse, in essence voting with their feet, can force governments to change. When too many people leave, the country cannot function.
* Peaceful resistance does not work when those in power have no problem killing those who disagree, who organize any type of protest or who strike. See North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe for modern examples of this.
Violence can be a dreadful thing that most people avoid, however is sometimes required to solve big problems. Look at hunger strikes and bus and train strikes. These were successful even without violence. Of course violence sometimes can be the answer, but not the most efficient choice even at the best of times.
There are plenty of examples in history that show that violence is not necessary in order for change. One of the most famous examples is Gandhi in India whose non-violent civil disobedience movement was able to push for independence from the British empire. Another example is Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States who was able to push for civil rights without ever resorting to violence.
Throughout history, non-violent resistance has often been a catalyst for change. The civil rights movement in the United States, for example, successfully used non-violent tactics, like sit-ins, to change Jim Crow laws. In India, Gandhi pioneered non-violent tactics, as well. Given these two successes, it is clear that violence is not required to cause change.
No, I disagree that violence is required to cause change, because violence often results in more trouble and does not solve anything. Violence rarely, if ever, solves a problem, and actually tends to result in more problems and issues. Talking and compromising is a far better solution to cause change. Change can be obtained with compromising or avoiding situations where violence can happen. Violence only causes more and more violence and, in the end, people get hurt and no change occurs.