In his book Drug Cartels Do Not Exist, Oswaldo Zavala argues that it’s not the state monopoly on violence that is the issue, but the state monopoly on exception. The cop who decides that this teenager he caught with a joint, or speeding, or fighting someone else, shouldn’t be arrested, but that teenager doing the same things should be arrested, is an example of the monopoly on exception.
Political Memes
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
The state holding a monopoly on violence is a foundational aspect of the existence of a liberal society. It is not only correct, it is essential.
“State monopoly on violence” is literally one of the main definitions of what a state is - the entity with the monopoly on violence in a certain territory.
If you reject the notion of a state monopoly on violence you reject the existence of the state itself. Which is philosophically a coherent position that places you in the long and storied tradition of anarchism.
It also instantly marks you as an enemy of the state. Any state.
I disagree. State violence is there to enforce rules, conquer territory or achieve political goals. Terrorism is there to create fear.
There is a difference between the US invading Iraq and Daesh shooting up a mall.
Terrorism is a bad word for describing it, but it sounds scary, and fear drives news ratings, so it stuck.
Terrorism isn't just inciting fear. It's using extreme violence to obtain a platform as a means distribute a message. Importantly, that message must be contrary to the state's interests for it to be considered terrorism. Otherwise it's just a crazy guy with a gun/bomb/jet.
Also importantly, terrorism can be committed by nation-states just the same as it can be individuals (like Ted Kaczynski) or militias (Hamas, American Revolutionaries/Minutemen).
there's a country called russia and they literally do just that. can't take over a moon landscape that once was a burgeoning village without disposing 50k personnel but sure can spam ballistic missiles on civilians for shits and giggles.