Violence in the classic sense is an action directed at another being with the intention to do harm. Wikipedia's definition is as follows, "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" . The latter part of that sentence begins do describe the form of violence few are familiar with, the indirect variety.
Indirect violence as I understand it is causing harm with actions you would not consider violent in today's society. When you steal, hurt, or murder another person the society usually deems this a violent act and punishes you. But are they correct in doing so, atleast in the system of justice and punishment that they claim to abide by?
An interesting piece in an article I read had to do with the indirect variety of violence. The market system we currently have in place works on this concept as follows. When one purchases or trades in certain commodities you drive the prices of goods up or down. In certain parts of the world that means the price of wheat, corn, and sugar. These effects trickle down to other parts of the world, and when the effects reach a poorer country, you are indirectly hurting, starving, and sometimes killing another individual.
Companies and individuals that trade in commodities have the ability to drive up the price of rice, corn, and sugar which in turn forces people in the other parts of the world to starve. And we individuals citizens do it on a smaller scale daily. These violent acts go on , mostly unnoticed. The companies or citizens do not go to jail for these acts, but other violent crimes result in jail sentences. These crimes tend to be what the current government or economic masters deem inappropriate, which essentially is just deemed legal by the current establishment.
