@neonsnake @HeavenlyPossum no.
I said that the specific violence reference is not universal. And only a select few state has the capacity for that kind of violence.
Me saying that a debate on whatever a state necessary means violence is me ending that debate before asking an related question to the topic.
Every state, everywhere, that has ever existed, has been violent every single day of its existence.
A “capacity for that kind of violence” might be unique to a handful of states that can project force globally. That does not somehow mean that other states are not intrinsically, fundamentally, pervasively violent.
@HeavenlyPossum @ekg @neonsnake
Pretty much every living thing exercises violence or the threat of violence to exist. Even trees. Anarchy is violent, States are violent. So it's a facile point.
I don't like violence, but moralizing without describing any alternatives is just patting oneself on the back. We've been doing that for centuries, and look where it's gotten us.
@Phosphenes @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake you aren't wrong, but it necessary to define what you want to see less of in the world. Saying that states are violent and I don't like it isn't bad.
Where things get iffy is when you denie states the ability to use violence to protect people from it.
