3 ms·

>Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence? not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'vi

>Or does anyone seriously believe that no government action in history has ever justified violence? not in literally all of history but I'm pretty close to 'virtually never justifies violence'. A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable and also practically sparks more and more violence, often directed inwards.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
morelisp 5y ago
> A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable I mean that’s almost tautological, right? There’s only the barest of lines between “sovereign authority” and “governing”. The key is that you replace the authority with one that doesn’t justify violence. (Which I’m not saying is trivial, but lots of groups have done it reasonably well.)
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
Why is violence not justified when the sovereign authority is itself founded on nothing more than violence, as has been the case for most historical governments? I would say the opposite. Violence is always justified against a non-democratic government (virtually all governments historically), as non-democratic governments have no basis for legitimacy other than having been the most successful at applying violence.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  I think that's not right for two reasons. One is that legitimacy isn't equivalent to democracy. I think it's more appropriate to define a legitimate authority as one that acts in the interests of its constituency, democracy is just a process for bringing authority into power. There are non-democratic institutions or governments around that are legitimate, and there are democratically empowered governments that are illegitimate. Extreme cases including religious or ethnic populist movements that end up slaughtering substantial parts of the population. Second reason is, I don't think most non-democratic governments hold power due to application of violence (few exceptions, mostly small). If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them, they've done so in the past. The reason they don't is that they see the government as legitimate, even if not democratic. Basically the same way corporations work. Very few are democratic, but they're not really upheld by physical force. The Catholic Church still has non-democratic legitimacy over a billion people. Clearly that's not because of the 500 Swiss Guard members in the Vatican.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    > I think it's more appropriate to define a legitimate authority as one that acts in the interests of its constituency Their interests as defined by who if not the constituency themselves? Legitimacy comes only from the consent of the governed, i.e. democracy.
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    > If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them That is utterly untrue. Have you seen the "Tank Man" photo [1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

morelisp 5y ago

> A political culture that justifies violence as a tool against sovereign authority I think effectively makes a country ungovernable I mean that’s almost tautological, right? There’s only the barest of lines between “sovereign authority” and “governing”. The key is that you replace the authority with one that doesn’t justify violence. (Which I’m not saying is trivial, but lots of groups have done it reasonably well.)

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

Why is violence not justified when the sovereign authority is itself founded on nothing more than violence, as has been the case for most historical governments? I would say the opposite. Violence is always justified against a non-democratic government (virtually all governments historically), as non-democratic governments have no basis for legitimacy other than having been the most successful at applying violence.

Barrin92 5y ago
I think that's not right for two reasons. One is that legitimacy isn't equivalent to democracy. I think it's more appropriate to define a legitimate authority as one that acts in the interests of its constituency, democracy is just a process for bringing authority into power. There are non-democratic institutions or governments around that are legitimate, and there are democratically empowered governments that are illegitimate. Extreme cases including religious or ethnic populist movements that end up slaughtering substantial parts of the population. Second reason is, I don't think most non-democratic governments hold power due to application of violence (few exceptions, mostly small). If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them, they've done so in the past. The reason they don't is that they see the government as legitimate, even if not democratic. Basically the same way corporations work. Very few are democratic, but they're not really upheld by physical force. The Catholic Church still has non-democratic legitimacy over a billion people. Clearly that's not because of the 500 Swiss Guard members in the Vatican.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  > I think it's more appropriate to define a legitimate authority as one that acts in the interests of its constituency Their interests as defined by who if not the constituency themselves? Legitimacy comes only from the consent of the governed, i.e. democracy.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  > If the people of China decided to march on Beijing tomorrow nothing in the world could stop them That is utterly untrue. Have you seen the "Tank Man" photo [1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man