6 ms·

Outsourcing violence to the state is probably the single biggest source of suffering in modern society.

baxtr 4y ago
I am not sure if the other options are much better. Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like, working for those with the biggest wallets is not ideal either.
- nisegami 4y ago
  Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like is just outsourcing violence to a different entity. For something to truly be an "other" option, violence would have to be something held and used at the individual level.
  - baxtr 4y ago
    Yeah, of course. That option sounds great on paper. At the same time, I wonder how you would avoid two of those individuals banding together to harass another individual.
b112 4y ago
Because lynch mobs are better? That is what a democratic state is supposed to replace.
pydry 4y ago
The state isnt infosys in the free market of violence. By definition it's the entity with a monopoly on violence.
pessimizer 4y ago
State violence keeps the peace. If you think of your own life (for most people I think), there's some incident in the past where you or somebody you love was hurt, and if it weren't for state violence, you'd have felt the obligation to hurt the perpetrator back. That's not good for the victim of crime, because not only are they suffering from the crime, but now they feel obligated to do take a dangerous, difficult action that they're unaccustomed to, or to feel ashamed for not having done it. It's not good for society, because the friends and loved ones of the perpetrator of the crime may have a different view of it, and now for you, you're the perpetrator of unpunished harm to their loved one. That's how family feuds start. That's in the basic case that almost everyone will experience at multiple points in their lives. Instead, the state intervenes and does just enough violence to keep the peace on both sides. The other reason state violence keeps civilization together is credit. To extend credit, you have to have state violence or a mafia. There has to be something to do if someone just decides not to pay you back. You can build up trust with a particular borrower by starting with small amounts (or collectively do this by sharing information with other lenders, but that's a bit of a mafia), but that doesn't prevent people from living up to that trust for the little loans, until the big loan comes, then absconding. Or simply doing it with introductory loans across many different (non-colluding) lenders. In all these situations, fortune favors larger families. Your family determines whether people will be afraid of hurting you, whether you'll get justice if they do, whether there are people who have resources that trust you enough to lend them to you... if you don't have a family, you're fucked. My problem is state violence on behalf of the powerful towards the weak, which comes with state control by the wealthy. Otherwise, thank Christ for state violence. I know I would have killed at least two people (unless one of them killed me) if it didn't exist.
SigmundA 4y ago
The underpinnings of modern civilization is the state, and the base definition of the state is that which has the monopoly on violence. The alternative is anarchy, and from anarchy a winner through any violence necessary will emerge and become the monopoly on violence becoming the state. You cannot have rule of law without coercion, and you cannot have coercion without some threat of violence.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  Its my understanding that anarchy is state without authority, or rulers. The idea of "disorder" has been tacked on because everyone believes that without some kind of authority, that's what anarchy would lead to, but from what I have seen in history, that ideology is not so conclusive. You can look at the Spanish revolution for reference. We don't know how that would have turned out because it appears that other totalitarian countries intervened.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    Humans are social animals, we work together to survive and prosper. In order to work together we establish agreed upon rules which are "law". In order for the rules to be enforced some form of coercion is used otherwise how would they be enforced? Throughout history some form of government exists with humans back to villages with chiefs or elders or council to arbitrate disputes and enforce law, violence is the basis for all human power structure, either you follow the law or you will cast out by force to then create your own power structure somewhere else or made to comply by force if you stay. Money allows people to freely trade, but in must be recognized by the state or theft of it will not be enforced and it becomes meaningless. It would be nice to think humans could just work together and agree on some basic economic rules and "let the market decide" but who would enforce the rules? That would just degrade into some aggressive monopolistic organization of people becoming the state again, power vacuums don't last and never have.
    - trinsic2 4y ago
      It seems to me that leaders (not rulers) and codes of conduct can still exist in this state. All that I understand Anarchy to mean is that there are no rulers that can oversee the many at the expense of the few.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
Until I read Hobbes in my late 20s I couldn't see further. Give Leviathan a go. I suggest an easy way in is to listen to these lectures on Political Philosophy by prof. Steven B. Smith [2]. Now, Hobbes and Rousseau are flawed thinkers, but the gist of "social contract" theory still constitutes the foundation of the modern nations state, whether republic, parliamentary or monarchy. The failure, as an earlier commenter pointed out to be a "geopolitical risk" is when we don't uphold our own principles. the Rule of Law that we in the "west" are so (rightfully) proud of must therefore be as brutal against the rich and powerful as against the poor. Without that example to assuage the middle classes everything gravitates to two poles, those with everything to lose and those with nothing to lose. Hobbes rightly feared those with nothing to lose much more (being an aristocrat's teacher at a time of civil war) and seeing all the fancy lawyers and money in the world won't do you any good against a hungry peasant with a rifle and nothing left to protect, so the state must treat the rich and poor as equals. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) [2] https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-1 https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-1
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Not sure if mob justice is devoid of suffering. The problem is that the justice system is only open to those with money. There is some basic help, right for an attorney if indicted, but that isn't enough overall to really get justice.

I am not sure if the other options are much better. Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like, working for those with the biggest wallets is not ideal either.

nisegami 4y ago
Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like is just outsourcing violence to a different entity. For something to truly be an "other" option, violence would have to be something held and used at the individual level.
- baxtr 4y ago
  Yeah, of course. That option sounds great on paper. At the same time, I wonder how you would avoid two of those individuals banding together to harass another individual.

b112 4y ago

Because lynch mobs are better? That is what a democratic state is supposed to replace.

pydry 4y ago

The state isnt infosys in the free market of violence. By definition it's the entity with a monopoly on violence.

pessimizer 4y ago

State violence keeps the peace. If you think of your own life (for most people I think), there's some incident in the past where you or somebody you love was hurt, and if it weren't for state violence, you'd have felt the obligation to hurt the perpetrator back. That's not good for the victim of crime, because not only are they suffering from the crime, but now they feel obligated to do take a dangerous, difficult action that they're unaccustomed to, or to feel ashamed for not having done it. It's not good for society, because the friends and loved ones of the perpetrator of the crime may have a different view of it, and now for you, you're the perpetrator of unpunished harm to their loved one. That's how family feuds start. That's in the basic case that almost everyone will experience at multiple points in their lives. Instead, the state intervenes and does just enough violence to keep the peace on both sides. The other reason state violence keeps civilization together is credit. To extend credit, you have to have state violence or a mafia. There has to be something to do if someone just decides not to pay you back. You can build up trust with a particular borrower by starting with small amounts (or collectively do this by sharing information with other lenders, but that's a bit of a mafia), but that doesn't prevent people from living up to that trust for the little loans, until the big loan comes, then absconding. Or simply doing it with introductory loans across many different (non-colluding) lenders. In all these situations, fortune favors larger families. Your family determines whether people will be afraid of hurting you, whether you'll get justice if they do, whether there are people who have resources that trust you enough to lend them to you... if you don't have a family, you're fucked. My problem is state violence on behalf of the powerful towards the weak, which comes with state control by the wealthy. Otherwise, thank Christ for state violence. I know I would have killed at least two people (unless one of them killed me) if it didn't exist.

SigmundA 4y ago

The underpinnings of modern civilization is the state, and the base definition of the state is that which has the monopoly on violence. The alternative is anarchy, and from anarchy a winner through any violence necessary will emerge and become the monopoly on violence becoming the state. You cannot have rule of law without coercion, and you cannot have coercion without some threat of violence.

trinsic2 4y ago
Its my understanding that anarchy is state without authority, or rulers. The idea of "disorder" has been tacked on because everyone believes that without some kind of authority, that's what anarchy would lead to, but from what I have seen in history, that ideology is not so conclusive. You can look at the Spanish revolution for reference. We don't know how that would have turned out because it appears that other totalitarian countries intervened.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  Humans are social animals, we work together to survive and prosper. In order to work together we establish agreed upon rules which are "law". In order for the rules to be enforced some form of coercion is used otherwise how would they be enforced? Throughout history some form of government exists with humans back to villages with chiefs or elders or council to arbitrate disputes and enforce law, violence is the basis for all human power structure, either you follow the law or you will cast out by force to then create your own power structure somewhere else or made to comply by force if you stay. Money allows people to freely trade, but in must be recognized by the state or theft of it will not be enforced and it becomes meaningless. It would be nice to think humans could just work together and agree on some basic economic rules and "let the market decide" but who would enforce the rules? That would just degrade into some aggressive monopolistic organization of people becoming the state again, power vacuums don't last and never have.
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    It seems to me that leaders (not rulers) and codes of conduct can still exist in this state. All that I understand Anarchy to mean is that there are no rulers that can oversee the many at the expense of the few.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Until I read Hobbes in my late 20s I couldn't see further. Give Leviathan a go. I suggest an easy way in is to listen to these lectures on Political Philosophy by prof. Steven B. Smith [2]. Now, Hobbes and Rousseau are flawed thinkers, but the gist of "social contract" theory still constitutes the foundation of the modern nations state, whether republic, parliamentary or monarchy. The failure, as an earlier commenter pointed out to be a "geopolitical risk" is when we don't uphold our own principles. the Rule of Law that we in the "west" are so (rightfully) proud of must therefore be as brutal against the rich and powerful as against the poor. Without that example to assuage the middle classes everything gravitates to two poles, those with everything to lose and those with nothing to lose. Hobbes rightly feared those with nothing to lose much more (being an aristocrat's teacher at a time of civil war) and seeing all the fancy lawyers and money in the world won't do you any good against a hungry peasant with a rifle and nothing left to protect, so the state must treat the rich and poor as equals. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) [2] https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-1 https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-1

raxxorraxor 4y ago

Not sure if mob justice is devoid of suffering. The problem is that the justice system is only open to those with money. There is some basic help, right for an attorney if indicted, but that isn't enough overall to really get justice.