3 ms·

Depends what you consider coercion I guess. Perhaps if you view it that way there isn't a monopoly, I'm not sure. The way I'd look at it is that you could alway

Depends what you consider coercion I guess. Perhaps if you view it that way there isn't a monopoly, I'm not sure. The way I'd look at it is that you could always quit your job, and you agreed to its terms beforehand anyway, so threatening to fire you is not exactly coercion... it's more like the contract stopping to be in effect. But I'm happy to see it as not-a-monopoly if that feels more sensible. The point I was disputing wasn't the existence of a monopoly on violence by the state, but the connection between that and "all laws are ultimately backed by violence" - I just don't believe every chain ultimately leads to violence, because states can (and do) coerce people in other ways.

amiga386 1y ago
This is why the monopoly on violence is often formulated as "the monopoly on legitimate violence" or "legal use of force" If you you don't pay your drug dealer, he can't take you to court, because his entire business is illegal. So instead he beats you up to get you to comply with his payment demands. If a policeman catches him doing that, the policeman can legally arrest him for the crime of assault, and can legally use force to stop him beating you up.
- dataflow 1y ago
  That... has nothing to do with what I said? I was saying that the government can and does coerce people to do a lot of things without violence. For many laws, just cutting off access to essential goods or services forces compliance without ant violence whatsoever - even if you never comply with anything. Heck, even mere arrest and jail time isn't violent - they can occur pretty darn peacefully. Of course if you become violent at any stage then that's what you get in response, and the government has a monopoly on doing that legally, but that's not a response to your noncompliance - it's a response to your own violence, which is separate and has nothing to do with the initial law you were actually breaking.
  - amiga386 1y ago
    > cutting off access to essential goods or services forces compliance That's still underpinned by violence. Why would the providers of essential goods or services willingly comply with a state's demands to cut off your access? Perhaps they think you're a good guy and the state has the wrong idea. Let's say they refuse the state's demand. The answer is the state in turn threatens these providers with whatever it needs to to force their compliance. And it threatens any fourth, fifth, sixth etc. parties it needs to. It threatens them with loss of legal status, loss of revenue, loss of property, loss of freedom. And it ultimately has to use violence to uphold these threats, should everyone it asks to carry out these actions refuse. It all traces back to state violence, it's just convenient for both the state and subject if the state doesn't have to escalate that far. But it always can. If it cannot - if the subject can successfully defend themselves against a state-backed enforcement of its laws - that's a sign of a failed state.
    - dataflow 1y ago
      > Why would the providers of essential goods or services willingly comply with a state's demands to cut off your access? Because their licenses might be revoked and that would affect how others treat them, both domestically and internationally? Because they have respect for the rule of law and want to live in a country where laws are respected? Because they realize they're playing infinite games rather than one-shot games, and that it might actually be better business to comply? I could cite a million reasons, but seriously: not every single compliance is due to indirect threat of violence. We actually have laws with penalties that simply do not escalate that far, and the vast majority of people still comply with them simply because they're the law, and a lot of people have respect for that. Hell, even violence is not enough to prevent the entire population from turning against you, even in the world's most powerful countries. The idea that every single law is ultimately backed by violence or that that's somehow necessary is just silly. Humans are more complex than that.

amiga386 1y ago

This is why the monopoly on violence is often formulated as "the monopoly on legitimate violence" or "legal use of force" If you you don't pay your drug dealer, he can't take you to court, because his entire business is illegal. So instead he beats you up to get you to comply with his payment demands. If a policeman catches him doing that, the policeman can legally arrest him for the crime of assault, and can legally use force to stop him beating you up.

dataflow 1y ago
That... has nothing to do with what I said? I was saying that the government can and does coerce people to do a lot of things without violence. For many laws, just cutting off access to essential goods or services forces compliance without ant violence whatsoever - even if you never comply with anything. Heck, even mere arrest and jail time isn't violent - they can occur pretty darn peacefully. Of course if you become violent at any stage then that's what you get in response, and the government has a monopoly on doing that legally, but that's not a response to your noncompliance - it's a response to your own violence, which is separate and has nothing to do with the initial law you were actually breaking.
- amiga386 1y ago
  > cutting off access to essential goods or services forces compliance That's still underpinned by violence. Why would the providers of essential goods or services willingly comply with a state's demands to cut off your access? Perhaps they think you're a good guy and the state has the wrong idea. Let's say they refuse the state's demand. The answer is the state in turn threatens these providers with whatever it needs to to force their compliance. And it threatens any fourth, fifth, sixth etc. parties it needs to. It threatens them with loss of legal status, loss of revenue, loss of property, loss of freedom. And it ultimately has to use violence to uphold these threats, should everyone it asks to carry out these actions refuse. It all traces back to state violence, it's just convenient for both the state and subject if the state doesn't have to escalate that far. But it always can. If it cannot - if the subject can successfully defend themselves against a state-backed enforcement of its laws - that's a sign of a failed state.
  - dataflow 1y ago
    > Why would the providers of essential goods or services willingly comply with a state's demands to cut off your access? Because their licenses might be revoked and that would affect how others treat them, both domestically and internationally? Because they have respect for the rule of law and want to live in a country where laws are respected? Because they realize they're playing infinite games rather than one-shot games, and that it might actually be better business to comply? I could cite a million reasons, but seriously: not every single compliance is due to indirect threat of violence. We actually have laws with penalties that simply do not escalate that far, and the vast majority of people still comply with them simply because they're the law, and a lot of people have respect for that. Hell, even violence is not enough to prevent the entire population from turning against you, even in the world's most powerful countries. The idea that every single law is ultimately backed by violence or that that's somehow necessary is just silly. Humans are more complex than that.