3 ms·

Violence isn't a market, and continuing to parrot that nonsense gives a false credibility to forces which amount to efficient bullies that entrenched themselves

Violence isn't a market, and continuing to parrot that nonsense gives a false credibility to forces which amount to efficient bullies that entrenched themselves by enslaving or genociding native populations. None of us signed actual social contracts, none of us signed forms agreeing to be governed. Violence is a choice that no government can take away. They can only threaten violence of their own. What validity does a government have when it claims it has the sole right to hurt others, including you? That is a fiction that led to the current state of things. What right does sovereignty give a state to oppress its people?

guerrilla 3y ago
> What right does sovereignty give a state to oppress its people? None, I'm just telling you what will happen. The argument was not that people consented, but that first they'll outlaw circumvention and then hunt you down for continuing to try. The point is that there is no technological solution to oppression. Some people here have a certain naïveté that everything can be solved with technology but that view ignores actual power in the actual world.
pessimizer 3y ago
This is a silly objection. The reason the state has a monopoly on violence is because it took a monopoly on violence, through the application of violence and threats of violence. > What right does sovereignty give a state to oppress its people? Rights are given by states. Without states, you don't have rights, only capabilities. Rights come into existence when an alliance with a lot of capacity for violence imposes rules on the people within its reach that it allows itself to be bound by. Governance is not a contest where you are awarded rule for being the best, or a trial where a wise man gives governance to those who deserve it. Governance doesn't care if you give it "credibility" or what "social contract" you have signed unless it decides itself that it cares about those things. The only credibility that a government needs is your belief that it will unleash violence upon you if you do not do what it says. You have rights under government. Governments themselves don't need rights, unless they are subgovernments of more powerful governments that have granted them. Don't retreat into abstractions and fantasy. You can't defeat fascism by proving it wrong; it's not a Star Trek computer.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  I see where you're coming from, but some governments also recognize "natural" or "God-given" rights, recognizing there are powers higher than they are that grant privileges or capabilities considered sacred. Granted, this set of rights will be different shapes and sizes depending on culture, but it's not so clear-cut that rights do not exist without government. There are moral rights that we can argue via philosophy. The state is truly only necessary to adjudicate conflicts between its subjects and maybe defend them. I also concede it takes more than an argument to fend off government, but playing along with "monopoly on violence" is so defeatist and pre-loads conversation with a guaranteed end result, when that end is not actually guaranteed. It can be fought.

guerrilla 3y ago

> What right does sovereignty give a state to oppress its people? None, I'm just telling you what will happen. The argument was not that people consented, but that first they'll outlaw circumvention and then hunt you down for continuing to try. The point is that there is no technological solution to oppression. Some people here have a certain naïveté that everything can be solved with technology but that view ignores actual power in the actual world.

pessimizer 3y ago

This is a silly objection. The reason the state has a monopoly on violence is because it took a monopoly on violence, through the application of violence and threats of violence. > What right does sovereignty give a state to oppress its people? Rights are given by states. Without states, you don't have rights, only capabilities. Rights come into existence when an alliance with a lot of capacity for violence imposes rules on the people within its reach that it allows itself to be bound by. Governance is not a contest where you are awarded rule for being the best, or a trial where a wise man gives governance to those who deserve it. Governance doesn't care if you give it "credibility" or what "social contract" you have signed unless it decides itself that it cares about those things. The only credibility that a government needs is your belief that it will unleash violence upon you if you do not do what it says. You have rights under government. Governments themselves don't need rights, unless they are subgovernments of more powerful governments that have granted them. Don't retreat into abstractions and fantasy. You can't defeat fascism by proving it wrong; it's not a Star Trek computer.

zlg_codes 3y ago
I see where you're coming from, but some governments also recognize "natural" or "God-given" rights, recognizing there are powers higher than they are that grant privileges or capabilities considered sacred. Granted, this set of rights will be different shapes and sizes depending on culture, but it's not so clear-cut that rights do not exist without government. There are moral rights that we can argue via philosophy. The state is truly only necessary to adjudicate conflicts between its subjects and maybe defend them. I also concede it takes more than an argument to fend off government, but playing along with "monopoly on violence" is so defeatist and pre-loads conversation with a guaranteed end result, when that end is not actually guaranteed. It can be fought.