3 ms·

>it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent events that may cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not for the fact that

>it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent events that may cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not for the fact that it also helps the government maintain a firm grip of control in all situations. Every single state acts this way. Every single effective state system at least. It's called "Monopoly on Violence." It is one of the defining characteristics of "modern" state organizations. Unsanctioned use of violence directly threats the state's power and will quickly call into question the state's legitimacy if the state can't control coordinated or wanton violence. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

gitrog 7y ago
That may be the official policy, but I think you only have to glance at the US to see that it doesn't always act on this. Of course, at some scale, government would be forced to act, but there is a lot of space in between where allowing violence to play out could even be beneficial to a ruling party.
- sterileopinions 7y ago
  >but there is a lot of space in between where allowing violence to play out could even be beneficial to a ruling party. That's why I used the word "sanctioned", publicly or privately.
himeexcelanta 7y ago
A valid source doesn’t mean you automatically have a valid argument.
- sterileopinions 7y ago
  Neat?