3 ms·

The article is very well-written and worth a read regardless of whether or not you are an anarchist [1], as the author appears to be. The naive advocacy for a s

by cyrus_ 15y ago

The article is very well-written and worth a read regardless of whether or not you are an anarchist [1], as the author appears to be. The naive advocacy for a society without a government monopoly on force at the end of the article falls flat, though. I don't see a convincing argument in there against the natural assumption that such a society would be ruled by gang violence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Qz 15y ago
Gang violence is just a microcosm of nation-states in conflict. Each gang has a monopoly on force within its own territory. One could argue that the monopoly of force is the only criteria necessary for something to be considered a 'government'.
- cyrus_ 15y ago
  Indeed, and I said as much in my comment. If you agree that there needs to be a territorial monopoly on force, the only thing you may disagree with is the extent of such territory. The United States is clearly too big a territory, with too diverse a people, to be ruled by a single monopoly, I suppose. But we tried ending that, it was called the Civil War.
heed 15y ago
Not only did the end of the article fall flat for me as well, I would go one step further to say the author possibly contradicted himself. In section X he talks about the Crits having heightened awareness toward the indeterminacy of law, but still impose their values on everyone else, like everyone else. It is true that the Crits want to impose "democratic" or socialistic values on everyone through the mechanism of the law. But this does not distinguish them from anyone else. Isn't this similar to what he's doing? Imposing his "anarchistic" values on everyone?
ataggart 15y ago
There is a crucial difference between gang violence and the state: only the latter is broadly held by the subject populace as being legitimate. Legitimacy, be it founded in democracy or the divine right of kings, is a dangerous force when coupled with the power to initiate violence against otherwise peaceful people.

by cyrus_ 15y ago

Qz 15y ago

Gang violence is just a microcosm of nation-states in conflict. Each gang has a monopoly on force within its own territory. One could argue that the monopoly of force is the only criteria necessary for something to be considered a 'government'.

cyrus_ 15y ago
Indeed, and I said as much in my comment. If you agree that there needs to be a territorial monopoly on force, the only thing you may disagree with is the extent of such territory. The United States is clearly too big a territory, with too diverse a people, to be ruled by a single monopoly, I suppose. But we tried ending that, it was called the Civil War.

heed 15y ago

Not only did the end of the article fall flat for me as well, I would go one step further to say the author possibly contradicted himself. In section X he talks about the Crits having heightened awareness toward the indeterminacy of law, but still impose their values on everyone else, like everyone else. It is true that the Crits want to impose "democratic" or socialistic values on everyone through the mechanism of the law. But this does not distinguish them from anyone else. Isn't this similar to what he's doing? Imposing his "anarchistic" values on everyone?

ataggart 15y ago

There is a crucial difference between gang violence and the state: only the latter is broadly held by the subject populace as being legitimate. Legitimacy, be it founded in democracy or the divine right of kings, is a dangerous force when coupled with the power to initiate violence against otherwise peaceful people.