You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
It’s very simple, really.
We want government because it helps manage infrastructure, distribute wealth (sometimes), provide social services, offer protection and peace, and for all these benefits, we grumpily get to accept state monopoly on violence
They want government because it’s violent, and for that they grumpily get to accept building infrastructure, providing social services, distributing wealth, offering protection and peace. They really, really want for the government to only be violent and do nothing else.
The boundaries of a state are pretty much defined by the monopoly on violence. If someone else is able to use violence whenever they want within a certain territory, they can make their own laws and enforce those laws with the threat of violence. If it’s unclear whose laws apply, then you don’t really have a state.
The good things a state can do are more or less defined by its laws. Protection from theft or murder requires laws. Progressive taxation is a law. Even a fire department that comes and puts out house fires exists and is supported by a series of laws. For those laws to be in effect, someone has to have the authority to deal with people who break the laws, which requires that they have a monopoly on violence.
An important thing to remember is that a monopoly on violence doesn’t mean that the state automatically does use violence. Most modern states function with a bare minimum of violence. What it does require is that nobody other than the state gets to use violence.
You really did steal this lmao. But yeah this does hit it on the head.
I’m a man of my word lol
‘Violence is not the way’, says the cabal of ultra rich, genocidal sociopaths.
You don’t need to be violent to eat the rich. Use local numbing agents.
Isn’t that what defines a state? Having a monopoly on violence and being able to secure its borders?
Except in an oligarchy violence is also coming from the wealthy.
Yes, but you don’t get the internet points with that kind of nuanced argument.
It’s so weird how my public education really stressed that non-violence was the best way to get things done but only gave two extremely cherry-picked examples versus the entirety of human history. Super duper weird.
Violence was the only thing that stopped me from being bullied my entire childhood. Teachers didn’t care. Other parents didn’t care. Principals didn’t care. Just the same old “Just ignore them and they’ll go away”. Okay, I’ll just ignore them putting their hands around my throat and choking me, I’ll get right the fuck on that.
The first time I ever defended myself physically while being literally strangled during gym class, I cold cocked the guy in the temple enough to drop him to the ground and let go. I got suspended. The person literally trying to do irreparable harm to me got no punishment at all. Right in the middle of a football field in gym class in front of 20 other students and two teachers.
I got suspended for “fighting back”.
Ghisline Maxwell’s dad published our textbooks
They also tended to avoid teaching too much about people like Malcolm X or Fred Hampton. Had to learn about them on my own.
Its seems all the peaceful movements had a violent counterpart going on at the same time, which made the peaceful version appealing to the ruling class.
Though both Malcolm X and MLK were assassinated because ultimately they didn’t want either.
I feel like you might be mixing two things here.
If there is a non-violent solution to a problem, that should always be preferred and is also IMO the best way in the grand scheme of things. And if there is not, it might be also worth considering if the problem to be solved is actually a problem in the first place. But a few problems are left where violence might be the only solution.
Also “the best” doesn’t mean “the most effective”. Many many problems can be solved pretty effectively with a violent act. Or the violence is the simplest approach. But it wouldn’t be the best.
Without defining what “the best” and “most effective” mean for you, your entire comment is a bit of a non sequitur.
“effective” is a binary measure; pretty much absolute. “best” typically implies “optimum” or “efficient”, so a trade-off, because a one-sided effect is typically not optimal. And as I said: sometimes the effective solutions is the optimal one. But I think that’s the exception.
arguably state violence is worse than other violence because everyone chipped in for it.
We should be hunting ICE agents for sport. The fact that not one, masked, armed, kidnapper has not had a single bullet fly in his direction is a complete failure of the citizenry.
And before someone says something smart ass, they’re nowhere near me. I actively look.
I wouldn’t trust either of those sites, they’re not showing any of the ICE activity near me at all. Are you involved in your local rapid response groups?
Do tell more?
Your local signal/telegram ICE watch groups? I can’t tell you how your local ones operate, but I found out about mine through the community group that’s been organizing the local protests.
The hardest part we’ve been running into is it’s hard to find trustworthy people to join. There’s not enough of us to cover the whole county, so by the time we hear about an abduction and get there, ICE is already gone and the only thing we can really do is try to help the families left behind.
Well if its going to be a sport, then there needs to be a league. And after the past couple years of league sports Iʻm deeply not OK with sports teams being allowed to move geographies. So whatever league ends up forming up needs to have rules about franchises moving cities.
I donʻt want to find out the Honolulu ICE Hammmahʻs are moving to Detroit some day.
Oh, it happened. They just weren’t shot BECAUSE they were ICE. They got shot and happened to be ICE.
@shalafi@lemmy.world There was also this one instance LINK HERE where a sniper shot at the ICE but only manage to hit the detainees killing Miguel Angel Garcia-Hernandez, 31, and Norlan Guzman-Fuentes, 37.
Didn’t they shoot at ICE in TX…pretty sure someone got 40 years for pamphlets too…
They shot back at ICE. They didn’t open fire first, and that sentence is absolutely bullshit because the thug with a badge was firing at unarmed civilians without cause.
An unarmed civilian with their back turned
And who is stopping you from doing it?
It seems like the hard core revolutionaries expect other people to martyr themselves for the cause.
Curious… Why did you choose to ignore the second half of their comment literally addressing your comment before you even made it?
Hey, if conservative shitheels are willing to cross state lines to fire guns at people they dont like, why isnt OP?
Got it.
They are willing to fight and die, but draw the line at credit card fraud or hitchhiking.
Thanks for the giggles.
ICE activity is hundreds of miles from me, at best. I am unemployed, have a brown immigrant wife and two small children 3 states away that depend on me. Not in great shape to go hunting.
Having said that, there is no situation in which they will catch me unarmed, armed with guns I practice with. I have decided that my cowardly ass would rather die than stand passively by and witness a kidnapping. I will instantly open fire and end up dead. I have shared this with my wife and kids.
John Brown was married when he went to Harper’s Ferry.
So you don’t think other people have people who depend on them? That no one else is located “far from the action” as it were? Do you not have empathy for their excuses as you do your own?
That’s the main problem with the opposition to this shit at the moment, everyone has plenty of ways to fix things… that are just so inconvenient that clearly other people should be doing it.
Instead of making excuses for why your chosen methods don’t work for you, you should focus on finding methods you can do, and helping others do the same.
Based
I’m not gonna go out looking for a fight, mind. But if I see one happen, I know whose side I’m on, because no, I didn’t get a good look at his face. That’s all.
Be peaceful, not helpless
Curious what you think that looks like when the state is actively targeting your neighbors, or when they decide to focus on you. What does being peaceful but not helpless mean in the context of heavily armed masked men abducting people off the street? What does it mean if they sight you at a protest and you become targeted? I’m actually curious how you think you could not be helpless in that situation, while still remaining peaceful, when the state starts leveling all the violence they can muster towards you.
nah. be nurturing and inclusive. sometimes that means challenging a dramatic asshole to a duel so he can feel validated and included.
Like the Starship Enterprise! Peaceful, diverse, accepting, curious, loving… and armed to the FUCKING teeth in case some motherfucker has just got to find out.
The enterprise was not afraid to fight back when violence was being leveled against them and it was clear that there was no other way out. They were often even quick to employ violence in the defence of others, who weren’t able to defend themselves. The state as it currently exists(utterly and completely captured by sociopathic corporate billionaires) is a violent, heavily armed adversary who is intent on extracting every last available resource from the world as quickly as possible, with no regard for human lives or suffering. When are those motherfuckers gonna find out?
Ok but why is it slanted
Shoddy craftsmanship
I can’t believer I have to keep posting this. What tf do you suggest and how is it not a suicide mission?
persuade weirdos radicalized into stochastic violence by Malcolm gladwell or my little pony fanfics or whatever to go after the right targets instead of shooting up a school when they finallu snap by arguing for violence against the right people in public.
First of all, these are not the same people. Second, it’s still most likely a suicide mission.
instead of shooting up a school when they finallu snap by arguing for violence against the right people in public.
yeah. I don’t know how to stop the suicide, I only argue for it to kill one billionaire instead of 20 school children or ten people in a super market.
Things will only get worse, and revolutions are a way to make things a lot worse very quickly
Another round, after this round you mean?
blunt force trauma to the head is deadly.
so throwing a rock or one of those bricks that the feds leave at riots and protests for bait is technically deadly force
So “less-lethal” projectiles like metal balls thinly coated with rubber being SHOT at the heads of peaceful protestors is technically deadly force as well. Only it’s not. Technically.
peaceful protestors
assaulting police officers and blocking traffic in the roads isn’t a peaceful protest. Looting and rioting isn’t a peaceful protest either.
Haven’t you seen the body cam videos at those gatherings?
Yes and while I have seen some people looting and rioting I have seen a lot more police officers assaulting, maiming and murdering civilians than the other way around. Usually the civilians were damaging property rather than harming or threatening people, and the officers had no reason to fear for their lives or the lives of others.
And a non lethal round to the eye is also deadly force what’s your point
