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, invalidating one of the core purposes of the state which is to provide security.
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.
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.
Change generally 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.
And that’s the thing, the state generally maintains a monopoly on violence against small groups, it’s near impossible for them to threaten violence against the population as a whole without creating a totalitarian state.
At the end of the day guns aren’t going to be what stops injustice, convincing enough people that the injustice is intolerable is.
That’s a quite reasonable response, but I will say that no actual revolution is likely gonna not involve a lot of violence. And yeah… protests are almost always gonna come at the very least with the threat of violence (for a reason). Plus, figures who do something violent that many see as ultimately justified can create awareness that could lead to more pressure on elites.
I just don’t think it’s productive to condemn violence in general. I don’t think violence not done by the state is in itself bad. Obviously a lone wolf going after random people they think deserve it isn’t gonna directly enact real change, but going on about how peaceful you are seems counterproductive.
Mass mobilisation and vigilante justice aren’t mutually exclusive, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
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 buy 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.
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.
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, invalidating one of the core purposes of the state which is to provide security.
Provide security for whom?
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.
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
Change generally 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.
And that’s the thing, the state generally maintains a monopoly on violence against small groups, it’s near impossible for them to threaten violence against the population as a whole without creating a totalitarian state.
At the end of the day guns aren’t going to be what stops injustice, convincing enough people that the injustice is intolerable is.
That’s a quite reasonable response, but I will say that no actual revolution is likely gonna not involve a lot of violence. And yeah… protests are almost always gonna come at the very least with the threat of violence (for a reason). Plus, figures who do something violent that many see as ultimately justified can create awareness that could lead to more pressure on elites.
I just don’t think it’s productive to condemn violence in general. I don’t think violence not done by the state is in itself bad. Obviously a lone wolf going after random people they think deserve it isn’t gonna directly enact real change, but going on about how peaceful you are seems counterproductive.
Mass mobilisation and vigilante justice aren’t mutually exclusive, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
Pic unrelated
That doesn’t require a monopoly, just more force than the terrorist can produce.
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 buy 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.
I agree those people are foolish, but my statement was about the relationship between terrorists and the state.
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.
It will also arm a whole shit of load terrorists, and people just having a bad day.
Yeah, and now you’ve raised the floor massively.
[citation needed]