Zoe @ekg@librem.one

@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 The state is a tool to achieve an aim, the Icelandic state is controlled by people. The EU threatens those people to achieve their aims, the Icelandic state is used to achieve that aim.

You might as well ask me me to find an unblooded hammer on a battle field, and on my failure argue that hammers are inherently violent.

@HeavenlyPossum I might say the EU, but remember they're an imperialist project of the us. Many core EU states are occupied by the US, including Germany. The former Warsaw states are scared by the Soviet experiment. And Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, and others basically had no experience with democracy before they joined. The EU is a project of manged democracy to protect US interests.

@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.

@HeavenlyPossum the rule of thumb is that a half the workforce work for the state, and about half the populous is in the workforce.

How is it different from the border guard exempl; when the the EU tells 75k Icelanders: "enforce you border or eat Icelandic shark"?

@HeavenlyPossum which Is why I specified nation state, as the Icelandic state is made up of the Icelandic people.

@HeavenlyPossum Does border guards that violently protect their nations borders because they want to eat* responsible for that violence? *or stay out of prison as is the case in many places.

The UK invaded Iceland because they didn't think they would protect their borders. Is Iceland responsible for UK troops actions on their island?

Nation states can be as much subject of violence as anyone else.

@HeavenlyPossum yes, my argument is that that violence doesn't originate from the Icelandic state.

Capitalist doesn't make up the Icelandic state, they are foreign investors. Which they have to let im to follow international agreements.

Iceland didn't choose to be a member of the EU, in fact they aren't. They had to join when the rest of the nordic did, unless they wanted to live on fish and warm rocks. They found a compromise.

It's not their violence.

@RD4Anarchy @HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake the idé that invitation can't occur because it hasn't magically solved all problems is bad. What we should look at is the trend, are states today's getting less violent?

@HeavenlyPossum Iceland is dependant on the EU for basically everything but fish and energy. The EU would make it much harder to access their economy if Iceland didn't agree to enforce the EUs borders. It's not Icelandic violence that enforce their borders, it is the EUs.

Iceland as nordic nation. In the nordic we have long history of collected barging. That is the labours negotiated their labour conditions, that might not have happened in a fair way.

@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.

@HeavenlyPossum they have something they call police. Labour rights should be well protected.

They are part of the Custom Union, they are as much subject to that violence as an any importer, they are also part of Schengen. So any border control isn't their violence but a consequence of their "choice" to have a functioning economy.

@HeavenlyPossum maybe Iceland? But I don't think I have enough insight in their society to say that clearly. And fishing is inherently violent, so if violence against fish count definitely not. I could easily be convinced that violence against fish count.

@HeavenlyPossum yes, but their violence isn't. Which is why I don't want to define them by their violence.

@HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake okay, that doesn't mean that it doesn't makes it harder.

I truly want to give every subject as much benefit of the doubt as possible.

@Moss @HeavenlyPossum I never said anything of the sort. I said I mean something else by the same word. And yes that happens all the time while traveling.

@HeavenlyPossum if I say that I define a state as what is necessary for a civilisation. And you then claim I am wrong. How is that not a disagreement on linguistics?

It happens that we both say state we are referring to mostly the same collection of subjects, we disagree about why they belong together.

@HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake language is restrictive. By calling these organisations for violent, or evil, it becomes harder to see them as anything else.

I don't want to dismiss all acts of what we might traditionally call state's as violent before understanding what lead to those decisions being made, and the consequence they might have.

@HeavenlyPossum as long as we agree that the disagreement is about linguistics, I think we are done.

As certain you are that I am wrong about the meaning of a state, I am that you are.

@HeavenlyPossum @neonsnake this is only true because you in part define a state as violent. Which might be appropriate, but it's not the definition I am used too.