4 ms·
It's hyperbolic in one sense, but not in another. Consider the fact that every law is backed by an implicit threat of force. For example, it's easy to say "I'm
by xwowsersx 6y ago
It's hyperbolic in one sense, but not in another. Consider the fact that every law is backed by an implicit threat of force. For example, it's easy to say "I'm just asking for everyone to pay their fair share" when referring to taxes. But what happens when you don't pay your taxes? You can be arrested and jailed. That is underlying threat of force. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- anigbrowl 6y agoAn implicit threat of force is very different from an explicit application of it. Feeling disgruntled (perhaps by proxy) over a small fine is not the same as being actually beaten, gassed, or jailed. You're not teaching me anything I don't already know, so what point are you attempting to make here?
- xwowsersx 6y agoThey are different, but it's not clear to me that the distinction is significant in the context of OP I was addressing which is the exact point I was making. Not every difference is relevant in every context. As for me not teaching you anything you don't already know, I can't possibly have any idea what you do or don't already know and I think it'd be more productive to leave that kind of snark out of the discussion here.
- anigbrowl 6y agoOf course you can have such an idea, by thinking about the context of the thread in which this discussion is taking place and the fact that I acknowledged two examples of state-imposed sanctions that business owners might have been pissed off about. Offering explanations of elementary concepts in the middle of a more advanced discussion is patronizing and unhelpful. Your point that the distinction is not significant speaks to a lack of experience on your part so I will assume your behavior was unintentional.