> How about governments advocating violence to achieve their objectives? That's what governments are for. It is one of the fundemental definitions of a soverei

> How about governments advocating violence to achieve their objectives? That's what governments are for. It is one of the fundemental definitions of a sovereign government, the monopoly on violence.[1] Violence is taboo but sometimes necessary. Only the legitimate authority of the people, acting under the law and through their democratically elected government can exercise it. (As I understand the theory.) As we know, even those legitimate authorities are corrupt to varying degrees; we are cursed with no alternative to human institutions. However, I think it's still much better than individuals making those decisions. > When can we send the FBI in after them? How about preventing militancy and extremism in government? When can we do something about that? That's the job of the voters. Don't forget to vote! ---- [1] The other is the monopoly on justice. The definition works well: For example, in regions of Syria, Daesh uses violence with impunity and runs its own system of justice. You can't really say that the Syrian government has sovereignty over those areas.