Conversation

The idea that the states should have a monopoly on violence is deeply flawed. The solution isn’t to arm everybody to create a self-fulfilling Hobbesian prophecy, but to ensure states do not have the *internal* structure of a monopoly. Checks and balances break up monopoly.
Replying to
The distribution of capacity for violence among various security agencies, and the distribution of political control of those agencies across levels and regions, is the real check against *monopolistic* state violence power. Not 2nd amendment.
1
14
This is why all this stuff about sanctuary cities and college campuses isn’t just leftist virtue signaling. If federal and half the state level governments all turn red, and the “well-armed militias” are basically allied with them, THAT’S a violence monopoly taking shape.
10
Replying to
It’s such a terrible definition. States don’t have a monopoly on violence in general - lynching etc.. His actual claim is they have a monopoly on “licit violence” .... AND WHO DECIDES WHAT IS LICIT, HMMM?
1