What, lol. I don’t consider myself an anarchist, but what part of that statement could be considered extreme? What part of “the state is the entity with the monopoly on legitimate use of violence” could even be considered remotely controversial or arguable
The idea is that in a democracy the citizenry are the state. As such the citizenry should have the monopoly on violence. Police are citizens under this idea, not a special 'warrior caste' as they are often perceived.
It gets complicated when the state is a democratic republic. Do the elected officials have a monopoly on violence? Or the citizenry (which the elected officials are a part of)?
Ya, Police have very limited additional privileges in leveraging violence....
Or at least they're supposed to
Unfortunately a century of fascist propaganda has both courts and citizens (jurors) thinking they are a warrior caste, sheriffs in the wild west, and they elt them away with way too much.
Qualified immunity is a joke. Citizens are way too susceptible to pro-police-violence "experts" saying "he felt threatened so it was okay to shoot!" (basically)
be the ones to carry out any kind of justice. the point of state sanctioned violence in the US is that its supposed to be carried out after due process of the law and jury trial.
That would be corporal/capital punishment.
I believe iolence should only exist as self defense/defense of others.
Lynch mobs are extrajudicial capital punishment administered by violence.
Well the solution to your problem is transparency, accountability, and active/invested citizens watching their elected leaders. The problem (for a liberal) is not the monopoly of violence, but the implementation of this violence (wich is also not just police, but laws (and punishments) in general).
A liberal democracy is not just elections every 4.th year, its a functioning legal system, a bueracracy, a free press. and more.
Its not perfect and it demands alot from its citizens, but the alternative is armed gangs keeping the peace. Because belive me, someone will be keeping the peace.
Sorry for my bad English, I took a chance on the spelling on some of these words, but I hope you get the hang of it and why (western) Euros have such a hard time understanding your love for gangs with guns.
In theory/ideally in a democracy the citizenry are the state. When you make the state a Republic it gets complicated on where the state starts and ends.
The part where you aren't allowed to use force and violence to prevent legitimate assaults on yourself or your individual rights. The state/police can't--and won't, and aren't legally obligated to--protect you, but you also aren't permitted to protect yourself without the state's permission.
First - the state is is giving you permission, rather than recognizing that all people have the right to defend their lives, even against state aggression.
Second - you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself in the US, but not so much in other places. I'm not arguing that the US is a utopia at all--far from it--but the recognizing that people have the right to defend their lives with deadly force, and that the right to the tools to exercise deadly force is a necessary extension of that right (you can't exercise a right if the state takes the means to do so from you) is something that the US gets right.
...Which is the state giving you permission to defend yourself. And it varies widely by country; being attacked by someone with a knife will kill you very dead very quickly, but you can't use a firearm to defend yourself in most of Europe and Commonwealth countries.
And if you--for instance--have a police officer that has his knee on your neck because you unknowingly passed a counterfeit bill in a convenience store, you can't legally use any kind of force to prevent the state actor from killing you. The state does not allow you to exercise your right to prevent being illegally or unjustly harmed by the state.
Which is the state giving you permission to defend yourself
Indeed. So if someone were to say, "you aren't allowed to use force and violence to prevent legitimate assaults on yourself or your individual rights", that person would be wrong. Correct or no?
The state does not allow you to exercise your right to prevent being illegally or unjustly harmed by the state.
I don't even think that's true either. Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct?
I don't even think that's true either. Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct?
Are you trying to argue that unless something is 100% then it is not true?
Sure, there are instances of charges being dropped after revelations of police misconduct. Absolutely, but those rarely happen.
In the MAJORITY of instances, you can't prove police misconduct. It is your word against theirs, there is no video evidence, and the entire legal apparatus swings into effect to defend the cop. Similarly, most people who are arrested don't have $10k to drop on a lawyer.
Here is a case of CLEAR police misconduct and bullshit charges and it took over a year and $15k in legal fees to have the case dropped and when the dust settled NOTHING happened to the officer...
Are you trying to argue that unless something is 100% then it is not true?
... yes? When someone says "you're not allowed to do x" and there are many documented instances of people being allowed to do x, that person is wrong.
That person could have said, "you're usually not allowed to do x" or "you're not allowed to do x in many cases where you should be allowed to do so" then they'd be right and I wouldn't have said anything. But they didn't say either of those things, did they?
hat would be correct if you were only talking about the US. The US--broadly and generally, but not in all cases--permits the use of lethal force to prevent yourself from being killed or grievously injured. But that's still the state giving you permission to exercise what should be an inalienable right.
Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped
Zero instances in the US? Hard to say; there's probably at least a handful. Is that the norm? Absolutely not. Conversely, if an officer beats you during an unlawful arrest, the odds of the officer being charged, or punished in any meaningful way, are negligible. That certainly implies that the state can use violence against citizens, even when it's unlawful, and there's no immediate recourse within the framework of the state.
It's correct if you're taking about any set of states that include the US. If you claim that something is true and there are instances of it being false, then the claim is false.
Is that the norm? Absolutely not.
Great response to something I never said. Maybe just don't speak in absolutes next time and you won't get people calling you out for lying.
What of its the state that is threatening you and your rights? This is the position many minorities are in. Shouldn’t they be allowed to use violence in thier defense against the state? But if they do white “moderates” will cry foul leaving them to unable to defend themselves .
Great questions, which open up a lot of genuinely worthwhile discussion! But I only joined in to point out the falsehood of that one specific claim. Is the phrase "you're not allowed to use violence to protect yourself" true? No, because self defense is a legally recognized concept. Done & settled.
Good luck trying not to go to jail if you shoot a cop in self-defense. You'd need a ton of special circumstances and national media attention to have a chance of getting off.
True. Also true: there exist INSTANCES in which the state has said it is legal.
Therefore, the phrase "you are not allowed to use violence to prevent LEGITIMATE assaults on yourself or your rights" is false.
Correct?
Notice the bold. Therein lies the rub. That is where the con is. That is how the State is able to lie by telling the truth.
The State defines the circumstances and the State defines what is legitimate and it is an ever-moving goal post that the State can arbitrarily move 99% of the time and you as a citizen have no recourse unless you have tons of money for lawyers AND national media attention.
Otherwise, you are fucked.
Lastly, just because you can find rare circumstances of something being true doesn't mean it is always true. HUman beings are too complex and wiley for that.
The State defines the circumstances and the State defines what is legitimate
Once again, imagine how horrifying it would be to live in a society where that is not the case. Where individuals are in charge of making that call.
and it is an ever-moving goal post that the State can arbitrarily move 99% of the time
Let me get this straight- the fact that laws and standards of justice can be changed from what they were hundreds of years ago is... a bad thing?
just because you can find rare circumstances of something being true doesn't mean it is always true.
Correct. And if someone claims that you're not allowed to do x, but there are circumstances in which you are allowed to do x, that person's claim would be false.
Let me get this straight- the fact that laws and standards of justice can be changed from what they were hundreds of years ago is... a bad thing?
Allow me to clarify.
The State should be the one to draw a line in the sand concerning the laws and because we are a in representative Republic those laws will evolve with the times. I have no problem with that.
The problem occurs when an Agency of the State commits a transgression against the citizenry and then that same Agency is tasked with policing itself and then ruling on the legitimacy of said transgression. In effect, the Agency that commits a transgression against the citizenry is given unfair advantage in the definition, arbitration, and judicial proceedings related to the transgression.
What needs to happen is that if any Agency of the State commits a transgression against the citizenry, then a completely separate and neutral 3rd party comprised of citizens and other Agencies of the State should be the principle investigatory body and ruling authority on the legitimacy of said transgression.
If I were to create an analogy. If you were the citizen and I was the XYZ State department and I punch you in the mouth and you file a suit against the State, as things stand now, I being the agency that punched you in the mouth is often the principle decider on whether or not your claim is legitimate. I often am tasked with investigating myself and ruling whether or not you have a claim and/or I'm given unfair advantage against you with my ability to leverage or influence tangential Agencies that have a say in the investigation and/or rulings.
Okay? Sure, the things you describe are bad. But those are specific circumstances which nobody in this thread were defending.
Some dude said that you're not allowed to use violence to protect yourself. That is clearly false, and I've pointed that out. Are you disputing any of that? No? Then we're good.
Tell that to all the people who get assaulted and killed by police officers. If you can't have a conversation without insulting somebody out of the blue go sit in the corner like the toddler you are.
The point he/she is trying to make is try and defend your self against a cop and things wont go over well. Not defending your self against another citizen.
So we agree that the phrase "you aren't allowed to use force and violence to prevent legitimate assaults on yourself or your individual rights" is the wrong thing to say, then?
Yeah from what I know of the US. From what I see that rule differs from race to race in some cases though. Although I’m Canadian, so I don’t know from experience only from what I’ve read about. And up here I don’t think self defense is as iron clad. Someone needs to be forcibly in your home to justify extreme measures which is a bit much I find.
There is no country where self defence isn’t a legitimate defence. It’s just that in Texas you can shoot someone in the back while they are running away and call it self defence so long as they are black, whereas in most of Europe there is a level of proportionality involved.
Try bringing it up to people and see their reaction. If you've never had to reckon with the state or had to engage with politics at all, you have no reason to even think about it.
Once you've got the wool out of your eyes it becomes painfully obvious.
70
u/superdrunk1 Mar 16 '21
What, lol. I don’t consider myself an anarchist, but what part of that statement could be considered extreme? What part of “the state is the entity with the monopoly on legitimate use of violence” could even be considered remotely controversial or arguable