If enforcing laws is inherently violent, why do nations w/ robust regulatory states have such little state violence? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ …
-
-
That law is fundamentally built upon violence is a non-controversional point, I think. See R Cover on this: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3687&context=fss_papers …
-
Fact that you don't see much state violence in states w/ robust reg regimes is attributable to strength of institutions and norms.
-
Yes–but those institutions and norms are thoroughly interwoven with laws.
-
That's the point though right? Institutions mitigate violence of law by constraining state and providing alt enforcement mechanisms
-
That dynamic is definitely there, but also true that laws mitigate the violence of institutions, economy, many social norms.
-
Agreed, but law constrains non-state violence through its own threat of violence.
-
Arkansas had an institution/norm of segregation. The law (i.e. Eisenhower) sends in the 101st airborne to put a stop to it.
-
You can acknowledge that violence undergirds the law and still think that the regulatory state is a good thing (I do).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.