Comment on I'm doing my part

• masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The state always maintains a monopoly on violence. Otherwise you’d have a terrorist show up and the state would be unable to stop them.

  source

  • Grerkol@leminal.space ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Provide security for whom?

    source

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Well in a democracy, presumably the people who vote for politicians. In a democracy with a constitution that guarantees rights and security for non voters then them as well.

      source

      • Grerkol@leminal.space ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That sounds nice but I don’t think that’s exactly the case in practice. There are often people who the state defends at the expense of others, who will never realistically receive any kind of justice from the state. I think things are also generally much better when these people are scared.

        I’m not trying to advocate for violence against anyone specific but sometimes I think it’s best when people stand up for themselves (and the people) to show that they’re willing to enact some kind of justice in a corrupt system. Thinking of vigilantes in general as immoral and barbaric while thinking “democracy” alone can help you just plays into the hands of those who wish to exploit you imo.

        Pic unrelated

        Image

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That doesn’t require a monopoly, just more force than the terrorist can produce.

    source

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It requires not allowing the police to be outgunned by terrorists.

      Notice that it was after the LA bank robbery in the 90s, where two guys had tons of body armour and military rifles and outgunned the LAPD with their 6 shooters, that you suddenly saw every single police force across the country militarize and by assault rifles, body armour, and APCs.

      Notice how in the UK their cops still patrol without guns.

      The state will always maintain a monopoly on the top level of violence. The idea of gun ownership to oppose the state is laughable. Notice: right now, no gun owners using them to oppose the state.

      source

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I agree those people are foolish, but my statement was about the relationship between terrorists and the state.

        1. A state like the US will always have more firepower than a single terrorist group.
        2. A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.

        The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state. You also reference police, when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force, which will have a monopoly on violence regardless of how one ignorantly attempts to organize or arm their police.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• skisnow@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I feel like the phrase “state monopoly on violence” has so many loaded words in it that people see it and assume it’s a bad thing by definition, when in fact it describes a cornerstone of all civilized society.

  source

  • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    when in fact

    Citation needed

    civilized

    Absolutely not. Almost definitionally not. Umless youre a big anti-civ type.

    society

    Kind of feels like its antithetical.

    source
• ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I fuckin’ love performative justice! Let’s virtue signal about killling people doing fucked up shit to children!

  source
• outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Yeah, thats never lead to innocent people being killed on an industrial scale!

  source