3 ms·

> Are "anarchy and mob violence" mutually exclusive with democracy? Yes, quite obviously yes. For starters, violence is obviously a form of oppression and goe

> Are "anarchy and mob violence" mutually exclusive with democracy? Yes, quite obviously yes. For starters, violence is obviously a form of oppression and goes agains the rule of law as well as a very long list of rights. It's always amusing how these terrorist organizations actually believed that violence is justified when they see themselves as the ones dishing the beatings instead of taking them.

claudiawerner 8y ago
Perhaps with the definition of anarchy as chaotic (which is a different definition to the left-wing one) and with "mob violence" also being disorganized, you would be right. But there's no reason why a mob can't be democratically legitimized, and indeed legitimized in the same way (or an even stronger way) than the current states legitimize themselves. The definition of violence does not speak of the law. In fact, to say that the law can't be violent assumes that the law is good. But I'm sure we can both name states and laws which are unjust. If someone unjustly harms you, is that not a form of violence? If violence is oppression, does it not follow that the current state of affairs with widespread structural violence is oppressive, and oppression must be opposed by any means necessary? Again, I'm no advocate of violence, but the idea that it is never justified is only nearly just as ignorant as the idea that it is justified only so long as the state exercises it.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > But there's no reason why a mob can't be democratically legitimized Nonsense, and that argument is alarmingly pathetic. For starters, it makes absolutely no sense to insinuate that the same majority that outlaws violence would, somehow, contradict themselves and do the exact opposite. And this sort of reasoning is even more pathetic when it's patently obvious that this argument is uses to try to put a thin veil of legitimacy on violent actions performed by extremist groups with absolutely no support in free and democratic societies.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    The majority does not outlaw violence, in fact, the state claims its ability to exercise violence is based on the will of the majority. The majority support the state's use of violence to apprehend and imprison serial killers, don't they? Do you think that only a small minority of people (especially in Europe) would be in favor of the kind of qualitative change that won't come about through voting? My intention isn't to defend those who use violence, it's to say that the state having a monopoly on violence does not make this monopoly just, and furthermore that the state's use of violence is in many instances unjust, and finally that revolutions happen with violence whether you or I like it or not, they occur when a population is so pushed to that extreme, as happened in the monarchy of France, the founding of the U.S. and imperial Russia.

claudiawerner 8y ago

Perhaps with the definition of anarchy as chaotic (which is a different definition to the left-wing one) and with "mob violence" also being disorganized, you would be right. But there's no reason why a mob can't be democratically legitimized, and indeed legitimized in the same way (or an even stronger way) than the current states legitimize themselves. The definition of violence does not speak of the law. In fact, to say that the law can't be violent assumes that the law is good. But I'm sure we can both name states and laws which are unjust. If someone unjustly harms you, is that not a form of violence? If violence is oppression, does it not follow that the current state of affairs with widespread structural violence is oppressive, and oppression must be opposed by any means necessary? Again, I'm no advocate of violence, but the idea that it is never justified is only nearly just as ignorant as the idea that it is justified only so long as the state exercises it.

geezerjay 8y ago
> But there's no reason why a mob can't be democratically legitimized Nonsense, and that argument is alarmingly pathetic. For starters, it makes absolutely no sense to insinuate that the same majority that outlaws violence would, somehow, contradict themselves and do the exact opposite. And this sort of reasoning is even more pathetic when it's patently obvious that this argument is uses to try to put a thin veil of legitimacy on violent actions performed by extremist groups with absolutely no support in free and democratic societies.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  The majority does not outlaw violence, in fact, the state claims its ability to exercise violence is based on the will of the majority. The majority support the state's use of violence to apprehend and imprison serial killers, don't they? Do you think that only a small minority of people (especially in Europe) would be in favor of the kind of qualitative change that won't come about through voting? My intention isn't to defend those who use violence, it's to say that the state having a monopoly on violence does not make this monopoly just, and furthermore that the state's use of violence is in many instances unjust, and finally that revolutions happen with violence whether you or I like it or not, they occur when a population is so pushed to that extreme, as happened in the monarchy of France, the founding of the U.S. and imperial Russia.