“Although I do not fully follow Benjamin to his anarchist conclusion, I do agree with his contention that we cannot simply assume a definition of violence and then begin our moral debates about justification without first critically examining how violence has been circumscribed, and which version is presumed in the debate in question. A critical procedure would ask as well about the very justificatory scheme at work in such a debate, its historical origins, its presuppositions and foreclosures. The reason we cannot start by stating what kind of violence is justified and what is not is that “violence” is from the start defined within certain frameworks and comes to us always already interpreted, “worked over” by its frame. We can hardly be for or against something whose very definition eludes us, or that appears in contradictory ways for which we have no account.”