---

I'm not really sure how to solve for this one, either-- because, in the absence of having some predefined enemy to pick on, or having some specific place to engage in this kind of conduct, those young men are obviously going to start attacking each other and lashing out randomly.

I have no interest in setting them loose upon either the upper class or any minority group-- because both the upper class and minorities are members of the society that I am trying to preserve and enhance.

No, not at all. What I think is, for the last couple of centuries, we have become so enamored of "peace and prosperity", and so committed to trying to maintain security and order, that we have neglected a vital human need-- one that is particularly vital to young men. We've neglected the human need for violence.

Especially in the last half century, we've closed down every outlet for natural human aggression. Even the few we have left-- organized team sports-- are allowed only to a select few, and those select few are generally shown greater latitude in exercising aggression and violence against their less qualified peers. We don't let young men brawl, we don't allow them to duel, we don't have "lawless territories" to conquer, and for the most part, we fight our wars as much by remote control as we're capable of.

And I think this, as much as other sociological problems, is what is causing many of the expressions of youth violence in our culture-- both the routine daily violence of gang culture and the sudden killing rampages that have been occurring lately. I believe that this also contributes to societal disconnect, as this form of violence is part of what helps young men to establish their place in the pecking order-- which helps them to define their place in the overall society.

Obviously, lethal violence does not benefit the individuals on the receiving end of it. However, I would argue that having the capacity to express violence is good for individuals-- even those who tend to lose more often-- and generally non-lethal violence with the potential for lethality is the most natural and most primally fulfilling expression.

__________________

While I take serious exception to the notion that the last couple centuries have seen us "enamored of 'peace and prosperity'," I think you're probably right about there being some sort of psychological/sociological need for outlets of aggression.

However, I see the connection between that inherent aggressiveness and violence as only coincidental. The need/desire is to be able to express competitiveness, aggression, and physical energy (which are all healthy and useful things, provided that are in moderation and expressed in the right context).
I see no inherent need to express violence for the sake of expressing violence; violence merely happens to conveniently combine competition, aggression and physical energy. As such, moderate, contained "violence," such as in the competitive sports you mentioned, is almost certainly beneficial to those who desire to participate in it. Others, of course, could find different outlets for competitiveness, aggression, and physical energy, perhaps using a variety of non-violent activities to deal with them each in turn.

That said, I really have only two points to make:
1) While being free to engage in contained, moderate, violence (such as sports) might be useful for individuals, there's nothing especially useful about the "bloodletting." If we can find healthy outlets for aggression, competitiveness and physical energy that won't risk serious injury, so much the better. Preventing minor injuries is generally not worth the effort, expense and inconvenience. But we certainly shouldn't encourage individuals to embrace extreme violence that intends serious injury to other people.

2) I would beware of the notion that, if young men can only find an accepted outlet for violent behavior, they will "get it out of their system." While that may be true for some types of physical energy and competitiveness, I think experience has indicated that violent behavior doesn't work that way. Cultures that have embraced violence in their youth have tended to be more violent in general. Violence begets violence, even in the individual.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

I agree. I think that allowing violence in certain contexts will only help to develop a taste for it in those participating.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I don't know.
I am conflicted about that.

Before my battalion went to combat the first time, we had Marines doing the "typical" Marine thing of drinking and fighting when they could get away with it. Now that they have been to combat a few times, there are very few of these instances. The "glory" of fighting has been removed, now that they have seen and participated in the ultimate outcome of fighting.

They are not running around wild, like your response would expect them to be doing.

I believe it is what the society will accept and won't accept, and how that society changes its view. In the society we as warriors live in, violence for the sake of violence is looked down upon, and generally not accepted, so the young guys mostly fall into line (but with frequent deviations when they think they won't get caught.)

Compare the Marine society with American society at large, whose morales change with the wind, and where anything goes, and the violence level outside is much higher. The violence for the sake of violence is glorified and passivly encouraged by the civilian world, and the rates of unchecked violence continues to rise.

What I believe works is a society that glorifies vilence only on the battlefield, and condemns and disavows it outside of battle, kinda like the Corps does.

It's possible. Then again my dad is a Vietnam veteran and he has some serious anger issues. I think that being in the military allows the people to at least be making a living and feel like they have a duty while many violent communities outside of the military tend to be ones in poverty with no legitimate jobs. I think a more telling study would be if people in the military are more or less violent than those outside of the military with a steady job, similar pay, and benefits.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"