4 ms·

> Try disobeying any law, and then resisting any agent of state that comes to apprehend you, and you'll see just how right Mao was. I don't think tried to unde

> Try disobeying any law, and then resisting any agent of state that comes to apprehend you, and you'll see just how right Mao was. I don't think tried to understand the distinction between power and violence that Arendt makes. How does potentially getting arrested for breaking a law prove that political power comes from violence? > Yes, in practice, it's threat of violence rather than actual violence doing the trick most of the time. But the reason why that threat is respected is precisely because the violence behind it is very real, and we all know it. It can just as well be a mutual and voluntary agreement. It's not like people who don't rape or murder usually all just refrain from that because it's illegal and would be met with violence, so I would argue the opposite is also true, we made certain things illegal so we can deal with it in a structured manner where the laws ideally apply equally to each. Just like children don't just obey or imitate adults out of fear, just like many open source projects are successful without any threats. The "violence" in "monopoly on violence" isn't any more sinister than the "road safety regulation" in "monopoly on road safety regulation", at least insofar every affected individuum is part of the entity that has said monopoly. > So you might end up with a "good guy with a gun", but it's still a guy with a gun. Yes, and? You just keep stating that as if it means something. What is your point, in relation to my original point of government being ours in principle, and being changeable? It's not like that there is no gun if you don't have a "good guy with a gun", that gun is a given, so why even bring it up?

int_19h 8y ago
> It can just as well be a mutual and voluntary agreement. If it were a completely mutual and voluntary agreement, then you wouldn't need a government as such, or laws, or any enforcement thereof. And that would be an anarchist commune, not a state. Any place that has laws, and penalties for breaking those laws, has an implicit threat of violence against law-breakers - it's really that simple. And if it is making that threat at all, it's because it expects the law to be broken by some. > The "violence" in "monopoly on violence" isn't any more sinister I didn't say anything about it being sinister in principle. It's only sinister if it causes more violence than it prevents. > What is your point, in relation to my original point of government being ours in principle, and being changeable? I was specifically responding to another person saying that "a gang is a little bit like government", further expanding on that. It was not directed at you or your comment.

int_19h 8y ago

> It can just as well be a mutual and voluntary agreement. If it were a completely mutual and voluntary agreement, then you wouldn't need a government as such, or laws, or any enforcement thereof. And that would be an anarchist commune, not a state. Any place that has laws, and penalties for breaking those laws, has an implicit threat of violence against law-breakers - it's really that simple. And if it is making that threat at all, it's because it expects the law to be broken by some. > The "violence" in "monopoly on violence" isn't any more sinister I didn't say anything about it being sinister in principle. It's only sinister if it causes more violence than it prevents. > What is your point, in relation to my original point of government being ours in principle, and being changeable? I was specifically responding to another person saying that "a gang is a little bit like government", further expanding on that. It was not directed at you or your comment.