@mxrn@social.tchncs.de @HeavenlyPossum monopoly of rightful violence, doesn't mean exerciser off.
The monopoly of rightful violence is the ability to dictate what violence is acceptable and witch isn't.
By the way the USA is losing this ability, which is way people fear civil war.
A monopoly over the legitimate use of violence has nothing to do with how “rightful” that violence is.
The “legitimacy” of that violence is a measure of how likely other actors are to endorse and support that violence. ie, if an Icelandic border cop uses force to exclude you from entry into Iceland, other state institutions will not act to protect you from attack but rather act to support that cop’s attack against you.
@HeavenlyPossum @mxrn@social.tchncs.de okay, I forgot a word.
My argument stand. The state is the state because it define legitimately of violence, not because it uses violence.
@HeavenlyPossum @mxrn@social.tchncs.de I don't disagree with you. I grabbed the wrong word, for which I am happy to apologise.
A state can exist without violence, in principle. The limitation is that it has to call the shot on what violence is legitimate, or legal. The Holocaust was very much legal, which is why the Nazi state was responsible for it.
@HeavenlyPossum @mxrn@social.tchncs.de their exist a difference between states cannot exist without violence, and them being the cause of violence. And on some reflections I think you are right.
States are tools for managing violence. if their exist no violence, their exist no need for a state.
States are not tools for *managing* violence. Jesus fucking Christ. Leave me alone.
@mxrn @ekg
A state cannot exist without violence, in principle or in fact. An array of different forms of community are possible in the absence of the state.