PDA

View Full Version : Obama Admits Government has Monopoly on Violence



Chris
03-26-2014, 06:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3r0akZgvIA

Chris
03-27-2014, 07:16 AM
Government Power Rests on Violence and Coercion (http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/26/government-power-rests-on-violence-and-c)


“Ukrainian events have demonstrated,” writes Maria Snegovaya in The New Republic, “that control of violence is still at the very essence of the state.” She says Vladimir Putin’s aggression proves that Max Weber’s definition of the state—an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force—is still relevant, even though we in the West “tend to think of the ‘monopoly on violence’ as a metaphor.”

We do? That would be news to the relatives of Kelly Thomas, a homeless California man beaten to death last year by police officers (who were later acquitted). And to the relatives of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed man who was shot to death by New York City police officers (who were also acquitted). It would be news to a lot of black and Hispanic men who have been stopped and frisked in the streets of New York—or bent over the hood of a squad car anywhere in America.

The idea that governmental violence is merely metaphorical would be news to the employees at a gold mine in Chicken, Alaska, who were stunned last year when armed and armored agents from the EPA swooped in to search for violations of the Clean Water Act.

It would be news to Gibson Guitar Corp., subject to an armed federal raid for using the wrong tariff code on imported wood. It would be news to Audrey Hudson, a reporter whose home was raided in October by armed federal agents who seized her files and notes. And it would be news to countless others whose property was seized through eminent domain.

Governmental violence is not a metaphor. It is not even an aberration. It is a daily occurrence. Often it is entirely justified: If a bank robber would rather shoot it out with the cops than surrender peacefully, his death will bring no loss to the world. If Osama bin Laden starts a fight with the U.S., then America should end it.

...


Here's the problem: Who decides when the use of force, violence, is justified? You guessed it, the entity that holds a monopoly on violence, the state.

Captain Obvious
03-27-2014, 07:45 AM
Government Power Rests on Violence and Coercion (http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/26/government-power-rests-on-violence-and-c)




Here's the problem: Who decides when the use of force, violence, is justified? You guessed it, the entity that holds a monopoly on violence, the state.

I don't consider myself a violent person by any stretch but I'm convinced that violence (or the threat of violence) is the only thing that is going to bring any material political reform here, or anywhere for that matter. The Arab Spring should be a good indicator of that.

When is violence (or threat of) justified? That's the real question.

And who is justified - who's stance? If violence were an acceptable form of political reform, imagine the chaos considering the political polarization here.