Any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation. Such groups are detrimental to society since violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems

The author proposes that political organization that advocates violence should be prohibited from operating within our nation. In support of his proposal, author states that violence is a short term solution and can lead to long term problems. Moreover, organizations motivated by violence will not be beneficial to society. However, author’s points are based on dubious assumptions and fails for several reasons.

First, author assumes that any goals achieved by violence of any extent are detrimental to society. This can be somewhat convincing but it would have been better if author would have discussed the nature of goals and extent of violence. For Example, America’s war against terrorism was a goal of the Republican Party. To end terrorism America had to fight war with Afghanistan. This is also violence waged by Republican Party but for the good cause of the nation. Another example is the formation of “Gaddar party” in India to achieve freedom from British government had a political objective that freedom can be won only by violence.

Secondly, author does not provide any evidence where a violent short term solution has lead to long term problems. For example, to control the mob during the riots the government might have to take violent steps to maintain law and order in the nation.

Thus, as it stands argument made is not very compelling. The author has failed to provide convincing reasons for political organization that advocates violence should be prohibited from operating within our nation. To strengthen the argument author will have to provide substantial evidence to prove that violent political groups are detrimental to society.