3 ms·
Quite the opposite. You ask the state to use their monopoly on legitimate use of force to enforce your rights in accordance to law. What you imply is a failed
by erikerikson 5y ago
Quite the opposite. You ask the state to use their monopoly on legitimate use of force to enforce your rights in accordance to law. What you imply is a failed state. The state must maintain the legitimacy of that use to maintain consent of the people, that or it slides into far less prosperous configurations.
- lazide 5y agoBeing in a far less prosperous (in a meta sense) configuration is surprisingly not as big a deterrent as one might expect, especially if you are making them angry or the official involved would get far more prosperous (in a direct, concrete way) along the way.
- necovek 5y agoKings and queens have been overthrown and replaced too, so I do not see any difference there either.