3 ms·
Purely literally, yes, you're correct, you can neither physically remove someone nor physically restrain someone, and this is a good thing, as the state has a m
by anoonmoose 6y ago
Purely literally, yes, you're correct, you can neither physically remove someone nor physically restrain someone, and this is a good thing, as the state has a monopoly on use of force.
If you only "metaphorically" toss someone onto the pavement, though (tell them to leave the premises), you're fine, and can have the group who has a monopoly on force enforce that request if necessary.
- krapp 6y agoMetaphorically, because we're really talking about whether "liberty" implies a "right to offend people" that precludes Twitch from being able to ban any account for any users' behavior. It does not. Especially not for the kind of egregious reasons they're stating.
- devmunchies 6y ago> this is a good thing, as the state has a monopoly on use of force i disagree that its a good thing. The threat of a minor altercation from property owners helps maintain stability (emphasis on minor). And the state having a monopoly on violence changes the dynamic of property, where the government can take whatever it wants from me (even my children) if they want to dream up a reason.
- krapp 6y ago>And the state having a monopoly on violence changes the dynamic of property, where the government can take whatever it wants from me (even my children) if they want to dream up a reason. On the other hand, without the state having a monopoly on violence, anyone has the right to take whatever they want from you, given sufficient force.