5 ms·

- Smaller organizations lack the propaganda reach and expertise to sanitize their actions and so they are classified as criminals. Larger ones have hordes of ac

by PJDK 11y ago

- Smaller organizations lack the propaganda reach and expertise to sanitize their actions and so they are classified as criminals. Larger ones have hordes of academics, journalists, philosophers, etc., proclaiming the moral righteousness of their use of lethal force and intimidation (see the "Bush Doctrine"). This is very much missing the point of there being any state at all. The notion of a single group having the monopoly on violence in a society is very important for that society to be able to function. To say it's the same because both government and mafia use force to get people to pay money is missing the point completely. Having only one source of violent coercion is vital for a society to function properly (see Syria for examples of what happens when you have many sources). If you can have democratic constraints on how that violence get's used, then all the better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

grandalf 11y ago
> a single group having the monopoly on violence There is some truth to this from a top-down, social organization perspective. But governments don't just have a monopoly on violence, they actively use propaganda to hide the use of violence from the public, through an ongoing process of whitewashing and image management that is incompatible with democracy. Violence is ugly. If our government does it, it ought to own up to every gory detail so that the public can honestly assess its appetite for more.
- rqebmm 11y ago
  Except part of the point of a democratic society is to leave the hard decisions of state to a small group of people who are ideally best equipped to handle it. The intent is precisely for the public at large to NOT have to assess every minute, gory detail, as then they would have no time left to contribute to the society. Now, that model also relies on the ability to trust that those chosen to make the hard decisions are doing so competently and in the best interests of the society at large. It also bakes in the assumption that everyone will have to make compromises. In the immortal words of Calvin and Hobbes "A good compromise leaves everyone mad".
  - fandb 11y ago
    >> Except part of the point of a democratic society is to leave the hard decisions of state to a small group of people who are ideally best equipped to handle it. In a representative democracy like America yes, (a democratic republic actually) yet a pure democracy seeks majority compromise.
    - rqebmm 11y ago
      True. I was using democratic as shorthand for democratic republic, but that does lose a bit of clarity.
      - grandalf 11y ago
        Representative democracy is not worthwhile for its own sake, it is something that is earned. The basic idea of democracy has no room for an intermediate "council of elders".
        rqebmm 11y ago
        Nothing is worthwhile for its own sake, but empirically speaking representative democratic societies have been the most successful in recent history, which makes it a reasonable default. What would you argue is better and more importantly, what evidence do you have that it would be more effective?
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Except part of the point of a democratic society is to leave the hard decisions of state to a small group of people who are ideally best equipped to handle it. Actually that's not "part of the point" at all. The point of a democratic society is to elect representatives to act on the majority's will, not to take "decisions on your behalf" and not because they are "ideally best equipped to handle it".
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Except part of the point of a democratic society is to leave the hard decisions of state to a small group of people who are ideally best equipped to handle it. No, that's the point of representative government (which can be part of democratic society -- hence, representative democracy -- but is not essential to it.) The point of democratic society is that society -- and government in particular -- should be responsive to the will of the people. One of the things the people frequently want, however, is not to spend all of their time dealing with issues of governance, so they often choose representative democracy as a mechanism for achieving that goal.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  I think you greatly overestimate the state's interest in hiding the violence they perpetrate, and underestimate how little people care about their country using violence, at least in this country and many eastern ones. In revolutionary France, as part of the purge of the old monarchy and replacement with a republic, there was a need for a more efficient way of killing people. See, the people wanted to kill all the old royals, but the old method was hanging, drawing and quartering, which besides being labor-intensive and incredibly painful, often used a stand-in in place of a rich nobleman. They wanted something more humane, more egalitarian, and of course, more efficient, since they had a lot of people to kill. The guillotine was introduced, and from Wikipedia: "Its operation became a popular entertainment that attracted great crowds of spectators. Vendors sold programs listing the names of those scheduled to die. Many people came day after day and vied for the best locations from which to observe the proceedings; knitting women (tricoteuses) formed a cadre of hardcore regulars, inciting the crowd. Parents often brought their children. By the end of the Terror, the crowds had thinned drastically. Repetition had staled even this most grisly of entertainments, and audiences grew bored." During both the Russian and Chinese revolutions, death tolls of those executed as traitors or proponents of the old empire were published widely by the state. After World War II, traitors were again executed in great numbers, and even during the war a "blocking detachment" might stay behind the lines to execute any deserters. America has also had public execution pretty much since day one. Hanging was our preferred method before the electric chair, and then lethal injection. We make sure that both the families of the victims can witness these deaths, as well as other witnesses, and they're widely covered in the news media. We are still the only Western nation left that practices capital punishment, mainly because people here love it so much that they can't seem to pass a law banning it or follow the UN resolutions that ban it. Now, there's plenty of abuse doled out by oppressive regimes against their people. But this abuse is still not necessarily propagandized or even hidden. A state may use secrecy and intimidation to continue their abuse, but propaganda is used more often to bolster some case the state is trying to make. Anyway, in modern times it's far more common for corporations to use propaganda to defend themselves from democracy than for the state to use it against its people.
  - wickes 11y ago
    >America has also had public execution pretty much since day one. Hanging was our preferred method before the electric chair, and then lethal injection. We make sure that both the families of the victims can witness these deaths, as well as other witnesses, and they're widely covered in the news media. We are still the only Western nation left that practices capital punishment, mainly because people here love it so much that they can't seem to pass a law banning it or follow the UN resolutions that ban it. Let's make this abundantly clear: the United States of America categorically does not execute criminals because "people here love it so much." Nothing about that idea is even slightly correct. Capital punishment is not used at all in several of the states, and in the ones where it's a valid sentence (or on the federal level,) your likelihood of ever actually being executed is excessively low. Since 1950, the Federal government executed 26 people. The entire country executed 35 people over the whole of 2014. Those 35 were in just five states. What a truly bloodthirsty culture. As for executions being "public," there haven't been any of those since 1936. There is certainly room to argue that subsequent events stretched the definition of the word "private," but the day has long since passed where you could just show up at the town square on the scheduled day in your commemorative "I <3 watching people die" hoodie and watch the Man give someone the needle. The reason witnesses are present to view modern "private" executions is because having the government kill convicted criminals where nobody is allowed to see it happen is an absolutely terrible idea that defies common sense. Like, duh. If Americans love watching their public executions so much, why do they never get around to actually doing it, and why aren't citizens allowed to just show up and take pictures?
tormeh 11y ago
Ah, yes. A voice of reason. It gets so tiresome when some people can't understand that the use of force is unavoidable. People who frequent the same circles where game theory is routinely discussed don't seem to grasp violence being a necessary consequence of its benefits to the victor. If they had understood that, then they would immediately have understood that a democratic government is a pretty good overlord to have, and that having some sort of overlord is mandatory. While it is true that states and mafia are similar in some respects, that is a truth of dubious interest and importance. I can only conclude that the people continuing to compare mafia and democratic governments are ideologically handicapped. Or maybe it's a steady procession of innocents believing the world has never considered their insight. Probably a bit of both.
- grandalf 11y ago
  My point was intended to look at the relationship between force and propaganda. I think the effective use of propaganda is a function of the size and power of an organization. Thus, organizations that achieve greater power are more effective at creating an image of legitimacy. If a government utilizes extensive propaganda against its citizens, can it really be called a democratic government? I'd argue that it cannot.
  - adaml_623 11y ago
    Your points are interesting but I think that saying government=organisation=mafia ignores the larger differences. Large organisations might have better propaganda but the nature of the organisation might be a bigger factor in the equation.
- rqebmm 11y ago
  Not to mention those who advocate for free-market capitalism as a panacea, but don't acknowledge that violence is logical conclusion of the exploitation of a market without any regulation. That or they believe the Roman model of private armies vying for control of a state was a great idea.
  - nickff 11y ago
theVirginian 11y ago
Ahh. Found the realist in this thread. Leviathan isn't really taken too seriously these days in political philosophy although its taught extensively because its a great introduction and his influence is wide. Hobbes bases his argument on premises that are dubious at best. (Men and women being solitary, miserably brutal existence until society gave them order) His conclusions are also extreme in that he concludes we will enter into the social contract and resign any semblance of freedom other than our right to preserve our own lives at any cost. He also goes to extreme lengths to justify his premises and conclusions based on the bible which is interesting if not a very modern approach to political philosophy. Max Weber is an interesting read if you want something a little more modern. John Simmons is another one to check out.
michaelt 11y ago
Having only one source of violent coercion is vital for a society to function properly Is it a problem if the sources don't share jurisdiction, or don't disagree in areas of shared jurisdiction? I mean, is it a problem if the French and German governments disagree, or if boxers hit each other, or if America decides to use drones to bomb some terrorist training camps in Pakistan, or if the tax authorities pursue offences the drug authorities are indifferent towards?

by PJDK 11y ago

grandalf 11y ago

> a single group having the monopoly on violence There is some truth to this from a top-down, social organization perspective. But governments don't just have a monopoly on violence, they actively use propaganda to hide the use of violence from the public, through an ongoing process of whitewashing and image management that is incompatible with democracy. Violence is ugly. If our government does it, it ought to own up to every gory detail so that the public can honestly assess its appetite for more.

rqebmm 11y ago
Except part of the point of a democratic society is to leave the hard decisions of state to a small group of people who are ideally best equipped to handle it. The intent is precisely for the public at large to NOT have to assess every minute, gory detail, as then they would have no time left to contribute to the society. Now, that model also relies on the ability to trust that those chosen to make the hard decisions are doing so competently and in the best interests of the society at large. It also bakes in the assumption that everyone will have to make compromises. In the immortal words of Calvin and Hobbes "A good compromise leaves everyone mad".
- fandb 11y ago
  >> Except part of the point of a democratic society is to leave the hard decisions of state to a small group of people who are ideally best equipped to handle it. In a representative democracy like America yes, (a democratic republic actually) yet a pure democracy seeks majority compromise.
  - rqebmm 11y ago
    True. I was using democratic as shorthand for democratic republic, but that does lose a bit of clarity.
    - grandalf 11y ago
      Representative democracy is not worthwhile for its own sake, it is something that is earned. The basic idea of democracy has no room for an intermediate "council of elders".
      - rqebmm 11y ago
        Nothing is worthwhile for its own sake, but empirically speaking representative democratic societies have been the most successful in recent history, which makes it a reasonable default. What would you argue is better and more importantly, what evidence do you have that it would be more effective?
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Except part of the point of a democratic society is to leave the hard decisions of state to a small group of people who are ideally best equipped to handle it. Actually that's not "part of the point" at all. The point of a democratic society is to elect representatives to act on the majority's will, not to take "decisions on your behalf" and not because they are "ideally best equipped to handle it".
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Except part of the point of a democratic society is to leave the hard decisions of state to a small group of people who are ideally best equipped to handle it. No, that's the point of representative government (which can be part of democratic society -- hence, representative democracy -- but is not essential to it.) The point of democratic society is that society -- and government in particular -- should be responsive to the will of the people. One of the things the people frequently want, however, is not to spend all of their time dealing with issues of governance, so they often choose representative democracy as a mechanism for achieving that goal.
peterwwillis 11y ago
I think you greatly overestimate the state's interest in hiding the violence they perpetrate, and underestimate how little people care about their country using violence, at least in this country and many eastern ones. In revolutionary France, as part of the purge of the old monarchy and replacement with a republic, there was a need for a more efficient way of killing people. See, the people wanted to kill all the old royals, but the old method was hanging, drawing and quartering, which besides being labor-intensive and incredibly painful, often used a stand-in in place of a rich nobleman. They wanted something more humane, more egalitarian, and of course, more efficient, since they had a lot of people to kill. The guillotine was introduced, and from Wikipedia: "Its operation became a popular entertainment that attracted great crowds of spectators. Vendors sold programs listing the names of those scheduled to die. Many people came day after day and vied for the best locations from which to observe the proceedings; knitting women (tricoteuses) formed a cadre of hardcore regulars, inciting the crowd. Parents often brought their children. By the end of the Terror, the crowds had thinned drastically. Repetition had staled even this most grisly of entertainments, and audiences grew bored." During both the Russian and Chinese revolutions, death tolls of those executed as traitors or proponents of the old empire were published widely by the state. After World War II, traitors were again executed in great numbers, and even during the war a "blocking detachment" might stay behind the lines to execute any deserters. America has also had public execution pretty much since day one. Hanging was our preferred method before the electric chair, and then lethal injection. We make sure that both the families of the victims can witness these deaths, as well as other witnesses, and they're widely covered in the news media. We are still the only Western nation left that practices capital punishment, mainly because people here love it so much that they can't seem to pass a law banning it or follow the UN resolutions that ban it. Now, there's plenty of abuse doled out by oppressive regimes against their people. But this abuse is still not necessarily propagandized or even hidden. A state may use secrecy and intimidation to continue their abuse, but propaganda is used more often to bolster some case the state is trying to make. Anyway, in modern times it's far more common for corporations to use propaganda to defend themselves from democracy than for the state to use it against its people.
- wickes 11y ago
  >America has also had public execution pretty much since day one. Hanging was our preferred method before the electric chair, and then lethal injection. We make sure that both the families of the victims can witness these deaths, as well as other witnesses, and they're widely covered in the news media. We are still the only Western nation left that practices capital punishment, mainly because people here love it so much that they can't seem to pass a law banning it or follow the UN resolutions that ban it. Let's make this abundantly clear: the United States of America categorically does not execute criminals because "people here love it so much." Nothing about that idea is even slightly correct. Capital punishment is not used at all in several of the states, and in the ones where it's a valid sentence (or on the federal level,) your likelihood of ever actually being executed is excessively low. Since 1950, the Federal government executed 26 people. The entire country executed 35 people over the whole of 2014. Those 35 were in just five states. What a truly bloodthirsty culture. As for executions being "public," there haven't been any of those since 1936. There is certainly room to argue that subsequent events stretched the definition of the word "private," but the day has long since passed where you could just show up at the town square on the scheduled day in your commemorative "I <3 watching people die" hoodie and watch the Man give someone the needle. The reason witnesses are present to view modern "private" executions is because having the government kill convicted criminals where nobody is allowed to see it happen is an absolutely terrible idea that defies common sense. Like, duh. If Americans love watching their public executions so much, why do they never get around to actually doing it, and why aren't citizens allowed to just show up and take pictures?

tormeh 11y ago

Ah, yes. A voice of reason. It gets so tiresome when some people can't understand that the use of force is unavoidable. People who frequent the same circles where game theory is routinely discussed don't seem to grasp violence being a necessary consequence of its benefits to the victor. If they had understood that, then they would immediately have understood that a democratic government is a pretty good overlord to have, and that having some sort of overlord is mandatory. While it is true that states and mafia are similar in some respects, that is a truth of dubious interest and importance. I can only conclude that the people continuing to compare mafia and democratic governments are ideologically handicapped. Or maybe it's a steady procession of innocents believing the world has never considered their insight. Probably a bit of both.

grandalf 11y ago
My point was intended to look at the relationship between force and propaganda. I think the effective use of propaganda is a function of the size and power of an organization. Thus, organizations that achieve greater power are more effective at creating an image of legitimacy. If a government utilizes extensive propaganda against its citizens, can it really be called a democratic government? I'd argue that it cannot.
- adaml_623 11y ago
  Your points are interesting but I think that saying government=organisation=mafia ignores the larger differences. Large organisations might have better propaganda but the nature of the organisation might be a bigger factor in the equation.
rqebmm 11y ago
Not to mention those who advocate for free-market capitalism as a panacea, but don't acknowledge that violence is logical conclusion of the exploitation of a market without any regulation. That or they believe the Roman model of private armies vying for control of a state was a great idea.
- nickff 11y ago

theVirginian 11y ago

Ahh. Found the realist in this thread. Leviathan isn't really taken too seriously these days in political philosophy although its taught extensively because its a great introduction and his influence is wide. Hobbes bases his argument on premises that are dubious at best. (Men and women being solitary, miserably brutal existence until society gave them order) His conclusions are also extreme in that he concludes we will enter into the social contract and resign any semblance of freedom other than our right to preserve our own lives at any cost. He also goes to extreme lengths to justify his premises and conclusions based on the bible which is interesting if not a very modern approach to political philosophy. Max Weber is an interesting read if you want something a little more modern. John Simmons is another one to check out.

michaelt 11y ago

Having only one source of violent coercion is vital for a society to function properly Is it a problem if the sources don't share jurisdiction, or don't disagree in areas of shared jurisdiction? I mean, is it a problem if the French and German governments disagree, or if boxers hit each other, or if America decides to use drones to bomb some terrorist training camps in Pakistan, or if the tax authorities pursue offences the drug authorities are indifferent towards?