3 ms·
Because a gun is an excellent example of force, coercion or violence. If someone points a gun at you, you know exactly what it means. The laws, the courts, ev
by msandford 13y ago
Because a gun is an excellent example of force, coercion or violence. If someone points a gun at you, you know exactly what it means.
The laws, the courts, everything else is ultimately backed up by violence or the threat of violence. If you are convicted of a crime and you say you don't want to go to jail there are people whose job it is to MAKE you go to jail. If you cooperate, the threat of violence doesn't turn into actual violence but if you do not, it will materialize.
It's probably the easiest way to cut out the myriad different ways that the state will back up it's laws with actions and cut to the chase: you can choose not to comply but you will pay dearly for it.
- anthonyb 13y agoAll of which ignores that there are many different ways of interacting with the state without resorting to violence, in favour of a nice soundbite. "Libertarian or people pointing guns at you" is a false dichotomy.
- msandford 13y agoYeah sure there's a million ways but ultimately if you don't do what you're supposed to, that threat is there. I'm not suggesting that false dichotomy, you are. What I am suggesting is that the state exists in it's current form largely because it does hold the monopoly on violence. The very definition of government is that it's the entity with the monopoly on violence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64KcZsD82E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64KcZsD82E How many steps removed does the guy toting the gun have to be in order for the implicit threat of violence to be OK? Zero? Two? Eight? How does the abstraction of that implicit threat make it any more palatable?