4 ms·

Well if we want to be like that, then everything requires violence to maintain. The Empire State Building takes violence to maintain because without the threat

Well if we want to be like that, then everything requires violence to maintain. The Empire State Building takes violence to maintain because without the threat of violence someone might carry away all the rocks. Your local library takes violence to maintain because without the threat of violence someone might burn all the books. Your own life requires violence to maintain, because only the threat of violence from the state prevents someone from killing and eating you.

krapp 7y ago
That is basically just a snarky way of restating the premise of the monopoly on violence[0]. And we do want to be like that, in theory, because violence cannot be avoided entirely in human interactions, and because violence as a regulated market is more humane than violence as a free market, and because that violence in the former case is mostly abstracted into the bureaucracy. For many people in a modern society the closest they'll ever come to seeing the "violence inherent to the system" is maybe a speeding ticket or misdemeanor jail time. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > And we do want to be like that, in theory One problem is that the whole illusion of power a government requires to operate falls apart when this promise isn't kept in practice and a large number of people become aware of this failure through media. Perhaps the news and following public outcries about e.g. police violence in the US serve a (second) purpose.
  - krapp 7y ago
    Yes, in exchange for the people ceding their right to violence to the state, states are supposed to be trustworthy and neutral arbiters who follow their own rules and are subject to the will of the people. Both the people and the state are supposed to be limited in their power. When that falls apart, and people decide to no longer participate in the fiction that is civil society, things can get ugly.
- Melting_Harps 7y ago
  > That is basically just a snarky way of restating the premise of the monopoly on violence[0]. Theory? No, some of us find that behaviour abhorrent, the very notion that civility is borne from the threat of violence, often from a Nation-State who holds said monopoly, is not only antithetical to observation/practice but if Human progress and conduct and Nature itself. Collaboration, specifically non forceful, is what allowed the Human species to thrive and essentially conquer this Planet--and in time others as well. The ISS, which should be grounded if only for external political reasons, is the best example of that very notion. Your (Statist) argument contends: Centralized violence is preferable because its obfuscated, and you can rationalize it should the need arise in which you may need it for my own ends. I think you need to re-address and review some basic terms before you can have any validity in that statement; the first being 'self-defense,' which is not violence. Try using that when redressing the State, whether it be for corruption, misconduct, misuse of Force, outright retaliation or theft (all typical when dealing with LEO): even if you're right, you will still be imprisoned for challenging the notion of centralized violence you advocate for resisting an arrest under those grounds. Privatization of Police sounds horrible on paper, given things enabled by the State itself: Blackwater, XE, misc rouge once State financed Mercenary groups turned rouge etc... But I'm open to the idea of how to move forward from this entrenched, expensive, and grossly corrupt system. Markets are efficient, but far from perfect, so I'm at least willing to explore the possibilities of access to the inherit need for conflict resolution. And having been an activist, something that USED TO BE TYPICAL of People who were interested in what the Valley was but has since been displaced by greed and cowardice, I'm far more familiar with 'violence inherent to the system' than what you alluded to. If you're instead speaking about the typical FAANG employee sat behind a desk telling themselves they're a 'disruptor' or some other contrived narrative, than you're probably right... but, understand that wasn't always the case. With that said, despite not wanting to live in any other period in Human History, the World is rife with Violence; Domestically and Internationally. The US penal system is on par with most dictatorship nations, it spends more in imprisoning and policing (local violence) than just about another developed country by a far margin, it also happens to spend more money on Military (which is the means international Violence) than most of the G5 nations combined. Furthermore, just look at Mainland China with the genocide, rape and suspected organ harvesting of the Uyghur People, and the violent occupation and suppression of basic Human Rights in Hong Kong. Its an amazing time to be alive, there is no doubt about that, but violence is ubiquitous, the thing is now with the advent of the Internet we're seeing it in Real-time from the People themselves, rather than a skewed perception of it a History book, or a 20 second piece on the news as was typical only a few years back. Edit: Keep downvoting; I held up a mirror and you didn't like what you see in the reflection, which is why you'd rather click a button than rebuttal.

krapp 7y ago

That is basically just a snarky way of restating the premise of the monopoly on violence[0]. And we do want to be like that, in theory, because violence cannot be avoided entirely in human interactions, and because violence as a regulated market is more humane than violence as a free market, and because that violence in the former case is mostly abstracted into the bureaucracy. For many people in a modern society the closest they'll ever come to seeing the "violence inherent to the system" is maybe a speeding ticket or misdemeanor jail time. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

lazyjones 7y ago
> And we do want to be like that, in theory One problem is that the whole illusion of power a government requires to operate falls apart when this promise isn't kept in practice and a large number of people become aware of this failure through media. Perhaps the news and following public outcries about e.g. police violence in the US serve a (second) purpose.
- krapp 7y ago
  Yes, in exchange for the people ceding their right to violence to the state, states are supposed to be trustworthy and neutral arbiters who follow their own rules and are subject to the will of the people. Both the people and the state are supposed to be limited in their power. When that falls apart, and people decide to no longer participate in the fiction that is civil society, things can get ugly.
Melting_Harps 7y ago
> That is basically just a snarky way of restating the premise of the monopoly on violence[0]. Theory? No, some of us find that behaviour abhorrent, the very notion that civility is borne from the threat of violence, often from a Nation-State who holds said monopoly, is not only antithetical to observation/practice but if Human progress and conduct and Nature itself. Collaboration, specifically non forceful, is what allowed the Human species to thrive and essentially conquer this Planet--and in time others as well. The ISS, which should be grounded if only for external political reasons, is the best example of that very notion. Your (Statist) argument contends: Centralized violence is preferable because its obfuscated, and you can rationalize it should the need arise in which you may need it for my own ends. I think you need to re-address and review some basic terms before you can have any validity in that statement; the first being 'self-defense,' which is not violence. Try using that when redressing the State, whether it be for corruption, misconduct, misuse of Force, outright retaliation or theft (all typical when dealing with LEO): even if you're right, you will still be imprisoned for challenging the notion of centralized violence you advocate for resisting an arrest under those grounds. Privatization of Police sounds horrible on paper, given things enabled by the State itself: Blackwater, XE, misc rouge once State financed Mercenary groups turned rouge etc... But I'm open to the idea of how to move forward from this entrenched, expensive, and grossly corrupt system. Markets are efficient, but far from perfect, so I'm at least willing to explore the possibilities of access to the inherit need for conflict resolution. And having been an activist, something that USED TO BE TYPICAL of People who were interested in what the Valley was but has since been displaced by greed and cowardice, I'm far more familiar with 'violence inherent to the system' than what you alluded to. If you're instead speaking about the typical FAANG employee sat behind a desk telling themselves they're a 'disruptor' or some other contrived narrative, than you're probably right... but, understand that wasn't always the case. With that said, despite not wanting to live in any other period in Human History, the World is rife with Violence; Domestically and Internationally. The US penal system is on par with most dictatorship nations, it spends more in imprisoning and policing (local violence) than just about another developed country by a far margin, it also happens to spend more money on Military (which is the means international Violence) than most of the G5 nations combined. Furthermore, just look at Mainland China with the genocide, rape and suspected organ harvesting of the Uyghur People, and the violent occupation and suppression of basic Human Rights in Hong Kong. Its an amazing time to be alive, there is no doubt about that, but violence is ubiquitous, the thing is now with the advent of the Internet we're seeing it in Real-time from the People themselves, rather than a skewed perception of it a History book, or a 20 second piece on the news as was typical only a few years back. Edit: Keep downvoting; I held up a mirror and you didn't like what you see in the reflection, which is why you'd rather click a button than rebuttal.