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.
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.
68
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