Monopoly on violence is literally something good. The biggest problem in the US is that this just doesn’t exist (see gun legislation), which leads to all the school shootings and a more militarized police.
Nah, it just institutionalizes it and perpetuates it in a different form – namely structural violence. It’s oppressive and coercive in nature, ultimately used to protect the interests of those with property and further instantiate inequality.
You can’t eliminate violence through violence. You have to meet people’s basic needs. A society that coerces people to act a particular way – especially in regards to meeting their basic needs – through the threat of force could not have been built on freedom, or compassion, or mutual solidarity. It’s unjust, imo
I don’t like the government, I’m an anarcho-syndicalist. that means different syndicates would be armed and they’d probably be competing, so yeah, I’m advocating for multiple armed forces
Cool. That’s a coherent political philosophy, you just don’t normally run into people arguing for more legitimate use of violence.
Personally, multiple armed entities sounds like the worst aspects of government without the redeeming aspects.
I’m the breed of anarchist more concerned with involuntary power hierarchy than specific forms of said dynamic, like class. Reducing the number of groups who can coerce others into doing stuff isn’t aligned with more legitimate armed factions.
I voted for my sherrif, so I’m more okay with him pointing a gun a me than your trade union, whom I didn’t vote for. It’s not wholly voluntary because I didn’t get to vote for “disarm the sheriff and make the fire fighters the principle law enforcement group”, so it’s far from perfect, but at least I know who’s holding the gun.
Monopoly on violence is literally something good. The biggest problem in the US is that this just doesn’t exist (see gun legislation), which leads to all the school shootings and a more militarized police.
Violence doesn’t just become good because you legitimize it through the state.
But there can be less of it, if it is exercised by a monopoly.
Nah, it just institutionalizes it and perpetuates it in a different form – namely structural violence. It’s oppressive and coercive in nature, ultimately used to protect the interests of those with property and further instantiate inequality.
You can’t eliminate violence through violence. You have to meet people’s basic needs. A society that coerces people to act a particular way – especially in regards to meeting their basic needs – through the threat of force could not have been built on freedom, or compassion, or mutual solidarity. It’s unjust, imo
This doesn’t look like a post promoting concealed carry for those with a batman complex, but I could be convinced.
LMAOOO im fuckin dead
no, it’s not something good, look at Honkong, Tibet, Russia, Iran, Belarus, etc.
Are you advocating for multiple, competing armed groups in the US?
Generally, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is considered a cornerstone of “government”.
I don’t like the government, I’m an anarcho-syndicalist. that means different syndicates would be armed and they’d probably be competing, so yeah, I’m advocating for multiple armed forces
Cool. That’s a coherent political philosophy, you just don’t normally run into people arguing for more legitimate use of violence.
Personally, multiple armed entities sounds like the worst aspects of government without the redeeming aspects.
I’m the breed of anarchist more concerned with involuntary power hierarchy than specific forms of said dynamic, like class. Reducing the number of groups who can coerce others into doing stuff isn’t aligned with more legitimate armed factions.
I voted for my sherrif, so I’m more okay with him pointing a gun a me than your trade union, whom I didn’t vote for. It’s not wholly voluntary because I didn’t get to vote for “disarm the sheriff and make the fire fighters the principle law enforcement group”, so it’s far from perfect, but at least I know who’s holding the gun.