3 ms·

> 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

> 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.