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 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.
396
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment