3 ms·

I don't see how it's sophomoric or "double talk". Control/institutionalization of lethal force is something governments do in the following ways: - supply pol

I don't see how it's sophomoric or "double talk". Control/institutionalization of lethal force is something governments do in the following ways: - supply police and military with weapons and authorize killing during conflict (defensive or offensive) - perform executions of those sentenced to death - punish those who try to use lethal force without permission (murderers) - to wield and threaten the use of force in order to achieve some objective (domestically or internationally). The presidential motorcade is essentially a parade of tanks that happen to look like limousines. Hence, transitioning from a state of relative anarchy to a state of governance requires the institutionalization of lethal force. There is a great deal of variability in the ways force is used, some of which we view as just and others as unjust. The details of this are not relevant to my broader point, which is simply that force and governance are deeply intertwined. If you are a high class member of society, the force generally all works on your behalf. If you are a low class member, it may often work against you. The edge cases (a cop shooting someone at a traffic stop) tend to effect lower class members disproportionally. It's idealistic to believe that in a majoritarian democracy, even the democratically chosen reasonable uses of force are fair to everyone they impact. I'm not sure which specific points you disagree with, so it is difficult to address them, but if you still disagree I'm willing to try.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
No 'hence' about it. Those are just a tiny listing of what government does. Tribesmen in the jungle govern themselves without doing any of those things. Some current nations, for whatever reason, don't do those things. Yet they are certainly governed. To blow 'use of lethal force' into the be-all and end-all of the purpose of government is over the top rhetoric.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > To blow 'use of lethal force' into the be-all and end-all of the purpose of government is over the top rhetoric. If your counterexample is what tribesmen in the jungle allegedly do, I think that's evidence that I've hit upon a fairly universal quality :) I'm not sure how you perceive my use of the point as a rhetorical ploy. I introduced the idea into the discussion to emphasize a key similarity between ISIS and other governments... Except in anarchy (or perhaps in jungle tribes) someone will control lethal force. In a majoritarian democracy the majority does, sometimes tyrannically. In a fledgling grassroots Islamist movement, the same requirement exists, but it's handled differently... so differently that my analogy seems inappropriate to some. Political groups are aggregators of power. Those who want power gravitate toward them. I de-emphasize whether the sort of power desired is financial, coercive (force oriented), sexual, or ideological... all scratch the same primitive itch. So it follows that ISIS will seek all of these kinds of power in order to become a respected and dominant institution in the region.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

No 'hence' about it. Those are just a tiny listing of what government does. Tribesmen in the jungle govern themselves without doing any of those things. Some current nations, for whatever reason, don't do those things. Yet they are certainly governed. To blow 'use of lethal force' into the be-all and end-all of the purpose of government is over the top rhetoric.

grandalf 10y ago
> To blow 'use of lethal force' into the be-all and end-all of the purpose of government is over the top rhetoric. If your counterexample is what tribesmen in the jungle allegedly do, I think that's evidence that I've hit upon a fairly universal quality :) I'm not sure how you perceive my use of the point as a rhetorical ploy. I introduced the idea into the discussion to emphasize a key similarity between ISIS and other governments... Except in anarchy (or perhaps in jungle tribes) someone will control lethal force. In a majoritarian democracy the majority does, sometimes tyrannically. In a fledgling grassroots Islamist movement, the same requirement exists, but it's handled differently... so differently that my analogy seems inappropriate to some. Political groups are aggregators of power. Those who want power gravitate toward them. I de-emphasize whether the sort of power desired is financial, coercive (force oriented), sexual, or ideological... all scratch the same primitive itch. So it follows that ISIS will seek all of these kinds of power in order to become a respected and dominant institution in the region.