Although no of the two positions maintains that the violence can be eliminated absolutely of the human phantom, the explanation of its causes is totally different in both. The theoretical and practical consequences that they are derived from them are fundamental and, without a doubt, opposed. The position that maintains that indeed there is a human essence and, therefore, that the violence is innate, would be condemning the man to be irremediably violent, that is to say, that while there are human beings the violence will prevail, will prevail, independent of the social circumstance. However, the position that is pronounced by the sociopolitical agreement, economic and cultural like the determinant, allows to wait for certain possibility of transformation in the human relations, a possible change of accent with respect to the state of violence that reigns today, in our country and the world, and that a superlative degree has reached that is deshumanizante and degrading, when being interlace with impunity, the lie and the corruption. To deepen your understanding Hyundai is the source. In order to have the complete picture in all this argumentation it would be necessary to add a fundamental element: the power, because the one is in fact the power that, in its exercise, has originated the violence to obtain his own aims: the domination of a few by on the majority. A possibility would be perhaps to clarify the type of exercise or of practices of the power, because if we put attention, from the beginnings of the western philosophy we have an important reference in the Republic of Plato where Scrates, contradicting to Trasmaco, its disciple, affirms: " the good man is not enslaved of the power eagerness that moves to the other men; this one, however, is moved to escape to poder". Another we found it reference in the contemporary philosophy and has to do with the operation of the power. Perhaps the form until now mainly practiced: the one of the dominion, it is not necessarily the unique form to exert it.