Any government relies on a monopoly of violence, because some minority will not consent to rule. Lenient systems will settle towards “don’t kill, cook, and eat your neighbors,” some will settle towards total subjugation of their constituents.
If not prevented with violence, new violent power structures will form spontaneously.
“allow” as in permit or not address… Obviously no structure is 100% successful at eliminating opposition, but without the monopoly of violence any government becomes usurped by another body that is willing to exert force.
No one should have a monopoly of anything beyond their own person/labor/property. Much less violence. Jesus Christ, you’re literally arguing for most of the issues with modern systems unironically.
If you’re going to motte and Bailey, try not to do it in one conversation. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
So a bunch of mental gymnastics later, we have two groups: those who consent to authority, and those who comply with authority because of the threat or application of violence.
I see. So you worked yourself into a corner and don’t know where to go from here. So our claiming a fallacy. Gotcha. Honestly I didn’t ever think you’re really engaging in good faith anyhow.
No systems that rely on and encourage centralization and concentration. Systems exist. They don’t educate us about them purposefully.
Show me literally one ever.
Any government relies on a monopoly of violence, because some minority will not consent to rule. Lenient systems will settle towards “don’t kill, cook, and eat your neighbors,” some will settle towards total subjugation of their constituents.
If not prevented with violence, new violent power structures will form spontaneously.
Too easy. Any anarchistic structure.
What “anarchistic structure” has derived authority exclusively through consent, and done so without allowing other violent power structures to form?
Unless you can tell me of any structure that has succeeded in that. That is an irrelevant question
“allow” as in permit or not address… Obviously no structure is 100% successful at eliminating opposition, but without the monopoly of violence any government becomes usurped by another body that is willing to exert force.
No one should have a monopoly of anything beyond their own person/labor/property. Much less violence. Jesus Christ, you’re literally arguing for most of the issues with modern systems unironically.
Anarchism doesn’t mean the absence of force.
Just as tolerance cannot exist if those who are intolerant are tolerated. Those who violate the similar social agreement to consent. Forgo consent.
If you’re going to motte and Bailey, try not to do it in one conversation. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
So a bunch of mental gymnastics later, we have two groups: those who consent to authority, and those who comply with authority because of the threat or application of violence.
I see. So you worked yourself into a corner and don’t know where to go from here. So our claiming a fallacy. Gotcha. Honestly I didn’t ever think you’re really engaging in good faith anyhow.