Tails is only partly correct. The state is open about it’s monopoly on violence , and it’s a key argument in the philosophy of government. The state will use that violence against anyone who threatens it.
The state exists to protect the power that enables the state. Protestors object to some organization of the state, and so they’re de facto threats.
Minorities are disproportionately targeted because they inevitably don’t have the power that enables the state.
It’s not the state being pro peace and making exceptions, it’s the state being pro-state, and being structured around that principle. The violence is inherent and exceptions are made if you provide value or benefit from value being defined to include you.
Exactly so. I read “Why Nations Fail” a few years ago and it really drove home what happens when nations don’t have a “monopoly” on violence. It’s just that you also need your government to have many firm limits on its ability to use violence.
Modern societies are rather unstable, I’m noticing.
And in a democracy, the state ought to be synonymous with “The People” but under capitalism and privately funded election campaigns, the state is controlled by the corporations and the rich who can afford to run candidates that represent their interests instead of the majority of the common people.
A recent Factually! Podcast with Adam Conover interviewed a Political Science professor about why US politicians are so old and it came down to wealth. The boomer generation has more wealth and you need a shit load of wealth to jumpstart a political career so the US is stuck with older politicians because we are far closer to being an oligarchy or plutocracy than an actual democracy
The Vikings let people go out and raid other villages but drew the line at murdering your neighbor. It that what you’re going on about? You think any one who wants should be able to have their own army?
What exactly do you mean? Monopolization? Superstructure? Violence? Where do I need to start? At the definition of a state?
My critique is as follows: Violence is currently monopolized by a hierarchical system of command & control - the state. I (and I’m presuming: OP as well) question the legitimacy of the state and its’ monopoly of violence.
I would prefer it if the necessary amount of violence would be controlled by horizontal power structures.
Tails is only partly correct. The state is open about it’s monopoly on violence , and it’s a key argument in the philosophy of government. The state will use that violence against anyone who threatens it.
The state exists to protect the power that enables the state. Protestors object to some organization of the state, and so they’re de facto threats.
Minorities are disproportionately targeted because they inevitably don’t have the power that enables the state.
It’s not the state being pro peace and making exceptions, it’s the state being pro-state, and being structured around that principle. The violence is inherent and exceptions are made if you provide value or benefit from value being defined to include you.
Exactly so. I read “Why Nations Fail” a few years ago and it really drove home what happens when nations don’t have a “monopoly” on violence. It’s just that you also need your government to have many firm limits on its ability to use violence.
Modern societies are rather unstable, I’m noticing.
And in a democracy, the state ought to be synonymous with “The People” but under capitalism and privately funded election campaigns, the state is controlled by the corporations and the rich who can afford to run candidates that represent their interests instead of the majority of the common people.
A recent Factually! Podcast with Adam Conover interviewed a Political Science professor about why US politicians are so old and it came down to wealth. The boomer generation has more wealth and you need a shit load of wealth to jumpstart a political career so the US is stuck with older politicians because we are far closer to being an oligarchy or plutocracy than an actual democracy
100%
All societies use some form of violence to control people.
Even the Amish ‘shun’ the malefactors.
But not all societies monopolize violence in an institutional superstructure.
What does that even mean?
The Vikings let people go out and raid other villages but drew the line at murdering your neighbor. It that what you’re going on about? You think any one who wants should be able to have their own army?
What exactly do you mean? Monopolization? Superstructure? Violence? Where do I need to start? At the definition of a state?
My critique is as follows: Violence is currently monopolized by a hierarchical system of command & control - the state. I (and I’m presuming: OP as well) question the legitimacy of the state and its’ monopoly of violence.
I would prefer it if the necessary amount of violence would be controlled by horizontal power structures.
I’ve seen evidence that Amish parents hit their children with wooden spoons.