4 ms·

I'm confused how you can paint individual violence in broad strikes and promote government violence as sanctioned? Tyranny happens when governments have a monop

I'm confused how you can paint individual violence in broad strikes and promote government violence as sanctioned? Tyranny happens when governments have a monopoly on force. Vigilantism is necessary when the government is corrupt or inefficient. To look past the need for individual retribution and justice is naive. I don't even have to search for 2 minutes before I can bring up countless articles about missing children, murders, thefts, and other immoral acts that the police or federal agencies do not care or have enough resources to address. These victims' only recourse is vigilantism. It's easy to sit in an ivory tower of bureaucracy when you haven't been affected by the corruption or incompetence of the nanny state. Read this for size: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/world/americas/miriam-rodriguez-san-fernando.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/world/americas/miriam-rod...

Xylakant 5y ago
In germany, the government has a monopoly on force. Often referred to as “Gewaltmonopol des Staates.” or “Staatsgewalt.”, it’s even laid out in the constitution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- goldenkey 5y ago
  Which illustrates my point - law has nothing to do with proper morality and ethics. Slavery was once legal. And runaway slaves were criminals. Justice is by and for the people. By all means, for the best outcomes, proper channels are desirable. But right is right, and one should strive to do what is right even when it is illegal.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Tyranny happens when governments have a monopoly on force. Necessary but insufficient condition. Tyranny happens when ... tyranny happens. [ EDIT: actually, it's not even a necessary condition. Plenty of tyranny has occured even when non-government actors have recourse to use force ]
- goldenkey 5y ago
  Right. And like evolution, given the necessary conditions and enough time...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Glad you agree that a "government monopoly on force" doesn't have much to with tyranny.
wongarsu 5y ago
Without a justice system you don't have justice, you have revenge and militias/mafias. That doesn't mean that every so called justice system brings justice. Most countries have very broken justice systems that just benefit those in power. Preventing corruption is hard. Individual violence can useful on the path towards a solution, but it is never the solution itself.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  > Individual violence can useful on the path towards a solution, but it is never the solution itself. That's a bold statement to make. When mankind is a space civilization, the speed of light will prevent any kind of universal police force from responding to events in an expedient manner. The limit of expansion is guilds and retribution. Defense is never impenetrable. Only punishment and retribution deter future infringements. If you cannot extend your philosophy to the future of civilization, it is a flawed one. Alliances are the way pretty much all sci-fi writers have written the climate of that era. And for good reasons. When you don't have the ability for defensive policing, all you have left is deterrence through retribution. And that is either personalized or clan/guild based.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    > If you cannot extend your philosophy to the future of civilization, it is a flawed one. I see this attitude in tech a lot and I think it is incorrect, and very harmful. Systems have emergent properties that only exist at certain scales. The best principles for an FTL civilization spanning the universe are not the best principles for present day, and an appeal to claims of first principles is blind to this. The same logic applies to arguments over censorship of large social media companies citing counterpoints involving small, niche internet forms with a few dozen users. Or amazon scale superstores vs. a grocery chain. Or large nations comprising a mix of heterogeneous cultures vs. small, uniform island nations.
dredmorbius 5y ago
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy

Xylakant 5y ago

In germany, the government has a monopoly on force. Often referred to as “Gewaltmonopol des Staates.” or “Staatsgewalt.”, it’s even laid out in the constitution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

goldenkey 5y ago
Which illustrates my point - law has nothing to do with proper morality and ethics. Slavery was once legal. And runaway slaves were criminals. Justice is by and for the people. By all means, for the best outcomes, proper channels are desirable. But right is right, and one should strive to do what is right even when it is illegal.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> Tyranny happens when governments have a monopoly on force. Necessary but insufficient condition. Tyranny happens when ... tyranny happens. [ EDIT: actually, it's not even a necessary condition. Plenty of tyranny has occured even when non-government actors have recourse to use force ]

goldenkey 5y ago
Right. And like evolution, given the necessary conditions and enough time...
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Glad you agree that a "government monopoly on force" doesn't have much to with tyranny.

wongarsu 5y ago

Without a justice system you don't have justice, you have revenge and militias/mafias. That doesn't mean that every so called justice system brings justice. Most countries have very broken justice systems that just benefit those in power. Preventing corruption is hard. Individual violence can useful on the path towards a solution, but it is never the solution itself.

goldenkey 5y ago
> Individual violence can useful on the path towards a solution, but it is never the solution itself. That's a bold statement to make. When mankind is a space civilization, the speed of light will prevent any kind of universal police force from responding to events in an expedient manner. The limit of expansion is guilds and retribution. Defense is never impenetrable. Only punishment and retribution deter future infringements. If you cannot extend your philosophy to the future of civilization, it is a flawed one. Alliances are the way pretty much all sci-fi writers have written the climate of that era. And for good reasons. When you don't have the ability for defensive policing, all you have left is deterrence through retribution. And that is either personalized or clan/guild based.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  > If you cannot extend your philosophy to the future of civilization, it is a flawed one. I see this attitude in tech a lot and I think it is incorrect, and very harmful. Systems have emergent properties that only exist at certain scales. The best principles for an FTL civilization spanning the universe are not the best principles for present day, and an appeal to claims of first principles is blind to this. The same logic applies to arguments over censorship of large social media companies citing counterpoints involving small, niche internet forms with a few dozen users. Or amazon scale superstores vs. a grocery chain. Or large nations comprising a mix of heterogeneous cultures vs. small, uniform island nations.

dredmorbius 5y ago

The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy