That doesn’t require a monopoly, just more force than the terrorist can produce.
Comment on I'm doing my part
masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 days agoThe state always maintains a monopoly on violence. Otherwise you’d have a terrorist show up and the state would be unable to stop them.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 days ago
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 day 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.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I agree those people are foolish, but my statement was about the relationship between terrorists and the state.
- A state like the US will always have more firepower than a single terrorist group.
- 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.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 51 minutes ago
A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.
It will also arm a whole shit of load terrorists, and people just having a bad day.
The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state.
Yeah, and now you’ve raised the floor massively.
when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force
[citation needed]
Grerkol@leminal.space 2 days ago
Provide security for whom?
masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 days 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.
Grerkol@leminal.space 2 days 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
masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Changegenerallh comes about from mass mobilization. The French have gotten more concessions from the government and the rich through mass strikes than Americans ever have firing guns. I’m not naiive to the idea that it’s all purely 100% peaceful protest, but one man with a gun rarely makes a significant change in the overall direction compared to hundreds of thousands of people turning out and threatening the economy.