3 ms·
I would argue that the government's monopoly on violence is more about its power to engage in violence than literal acts of violence.
by ronsor 2y ago
I would argue that the government's monopoly on violence is more about its power to engage in violence than literal acts of violence.
- skinkestek 2y agoAhh. Good point. Around here people are often very well armed but only military and politice are allowed to use firearms.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the government's monopoly on violence is more about its power to engage in violence than literal acts of violence Power being capability and willingness. Guns give a private citizen capability, same as anyone who can make a fist. They do not extend to signalling a willingness to shoot someone. (Threats, on the other hand, are illegal. Partly because they're no fun for anyone involved. Partly because that crosses from potential to actual.)