Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Uh...what?
The KPD and SPD certainly didn't get along, but I don't recall the SPD siding with the Nazis. By the time the Nazis took power, Hindenburg was essentially ruling by decree and it was Conservatives and Royalists that ended up putting the NSDAP into power.
I agree with your general point, but as to my knowledge that example played out rather differently. "Moderates" as far as I recall ended up supporting other partiesnote .
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jul 14th 2019 at 1:57:56 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer― Robert A. Heinlein
This is not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a fact. It's a good thing when used well (ie, police arresting murderers, military defending against invasion), and a bad thing when used badly (ie, police arresting political dissidents, military annexing territory).
Edited by NativeJovian on Jul 14th 2019 at 2:01:36 PM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Violence is not a form of authority other forms of authority derive from. It is the lowest form of authority and basic. It requires a person willingly preferring survival over obedience but if a person resists then it is utterly ineffective.
While doing violence in turn is one way of resisting, so is simply not obeying.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 14th 2019 at 11:10:05 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
In most jurisdictions in the US you’re only legally allowed to make a citizen’s arrest for certain violent felonies, so even that is a bit implausible.
Violence is the most fundamental form of authority. States hold their authority through monopoly of force.
That’s not to say it’s a good thing, or that violence is a form of authority we should be quick to turn to, but it’s the nature of the beast so to speak.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 14th 2019 at 11:16:09 AM
They should have sent a poet.A new study ranked the Democratic presidential contenders by who has done the most to help build the party on the state level.
I am a mite surprised by the results...
A statement often repeated, always wrong.
States cannot hold a monopoly on force as their citizenry will always have it themselves and can simply stop responding to it.
Resulting in the collapse of said states.
Violence cannot maintain states by themselves and when they do inevitably bring down the states—very often through simple nonfunction.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:07:57 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.States cannot hold a monopoly on force as their citizenry will always have it themselves and can simply stop responding to it.
Resulting in the collapse of said states.
Violence cannot maintain states by themselves and when they do inevitably bring down the states—very often through simple nonfunction.
Wait, let me get this straight. Your argument against the idea that all authority is derived from violence is to argue that the monopoly of force doesn't exist? That's incredible.
No one has said that violence maintains states by itself, but to argue that it isn't the fundamental source of authority is incredible. How do you think the law works? If you violate it then professionals with truncheons, and in some cases, guns, come to take you away. Which at minimum involves the threat of implied violence.
Authority deriving from the capacity to do violence is perfectly compatible with the consent of the governed, just because we consent does not mean that the capacity to do violence is any less central to the existence of government.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:13:10 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangDistilling a great deal of economic, social, and government theory into simple terms—the most violent person in a society is not usually the ruler. Military dictatorships can and do exist but very often don't function very well — or they would be in charge everywhere. You could argue that this is because violence is something the people can bring to bear against the military but that's actually ridiculous. Many societies would be annihilated if they rebelled against a military and have included ones that have.
However, in general, military rule and society is not able to actually provide the things that need a society to function. Food, shelter, clothing, water, and functional logistics means that violence is a tool that very often falls short. It's not the "tool from which all authority is derived' because it's a negative tool that can't provide past a certain point.
Dave: I will kill you if you don't give me your wheat.
Jon: No.
Dave: But I will KILL YOU.
Jon: But I need that wheat to survive so I have no reason to actually give in because it's death either way.
People can and do respond to violence with violence but as often as not they can and have also sought other ways to undermine or render violent rule nonfunctional. It's why so many violence derived governments start falling apart.
No, I'm saying that a monopoly of force is a blindingly stupid statement that flat out cannot exist. It exists only in a textbook because the force of the state requires the consent of the people that it is using to enforce the law, the people of the law being forced on, and many economic as well as physical factors.
And at basis, will lose its "control" of force the moment people stop obeying.
Monopoly of force is one of those slogans that doesn't make any actual fucking sense. It's a basic West Virginian point.
The mine barons had the police, Pinkertons, and US military—and they lost control completely because the miners simply stopped obeying.
Their monopoly on force meant shit.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:15:46 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.That... isn't what the quote or anyone else has argued.
All authority deriving itself from the capability to do violence is not military rule. If you have police and enforce the law with them then that's violence, your society could be demilitarized and that wouldn't be any less true.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:15:36 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYour not getting it.
Violence means shit and control over it doesn't actually give you any real power. People who rely on it for state authority are dumb. Its useful but not even in the top 5 of tools.
You can certainly disagree with the statement but I'm using the example of military rule that authority is not derived from violence.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:18:35 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.What? I can’t think of a single state on earth that doesn’t rely on violence in part for control. It’s the single most fundamental aspect of authority. What do you think police are?
Monopoly of force doesn’t mean the military in the streets or killing everyone who resists. It means that the state can force compliance when the social contract is violated. The idea that the monopoly of force somehow doesn’t exist is patently absurd.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:24:52 PM
They should have sent a poet.I think people are conflating two diferent stament here: in deed violence cant grand legimitacy in any why because eventually you are in permanent war with your own people(and belive and can said that very well here), now that being said the state does kinda use the monopoly of force with the caveat that is it so no other political actors use violence to get what it wants.
Now while in bare esencial the quote is right, it feel very pretentious to use it in what can be sumed here as "violence for progresive or the right cause is good men, think about it" Which goes back to this fetichization the left does have with violence as tool, something I fine annoying from time to time.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"A common definition of a state is monopoly of force. The state doesn't need to be "violent" in the sense of using force frequently, but a state's authority is it's capacity to use violence.
For example, if you litter, you will be fined. If you do not pay the fine, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, there will be violence. All laws end in "or there will be violence".
Leviticus 19:34![]()
You’re using the wrong interpretation of the word “violence” here.
Violence has already granted the state legitimacy. States have the ability to apply force uphold their social contract. As was pointed out, that’s a basic characteristic of a state. There isn’t a single state on earth that doesn’t have armed men in its streets in the form of a security apparatus. That’s a threat of violence, leveled against its citizens, to uphold the social contract.
They should have sent a poet.Violence cant grand a state legitimacy otherwise it become "the stronger rules" after all, a monopoly of force does grantied that other actor dosent used violence to get what they want.....
Unless those political actor gain control of the force of the state in the first place but whatever, that is not here and there.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Again, violence has already granted states legitimacy. That’s what police are. Every single state on earth maintains a security apparatus that is able to inflict violence against its citizens, and that threat of violence is used to maintain order.
You’re thinking of violence in the wrong sense. Violence granting authority doesn’t automatically mean military rule or killing anyone who disagrees with you.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:47:00 PM
They should have sent a poet.The police being granted authority by violence is a backhanded way of viewing it it. They're granted permission to use violence by authority.
It's also an erroneous one as there are states without police or militaries.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:47:59 PM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
And what do the police do with the authority the state grants them? They enforce compliance with the laws of the state using violence. That’s just nonsense reasoning. Being able to force compliance is a basic characteristic of a state, some would argue the single most basic.
There isn’t a single state on earth without a police force. Not one.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 14th 2019 at 12:51:24 PM
They should have sent a poet.But they are state who can used violence without being legit, dictatorship and autocracy in fact who transform violence as way to mantain order to mantain themselves and their only imperative.
a state gain legitimacy depending of their rule of being rule: given from god, frome blood, from the vote, you name it, violence is used a way to mantain autority but isnt a source of it.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
God or blood or whatever won’t drag someone away if they break the law. They won’t magically establish borders. They’re concepts, not actual sources of authority. You’re still mixing definitions here.
Every sovereign state ultimately draws its authority from the threat of violence.
Edited by archonspeaks on Jul 14th 2019 at 1:03:10 AM
They should have sent a poet.
And yet without those concept you have internal strife, problem of legitimicy which it can follow into disaster because surprise authority by force mean nothing at the long rule but naked warlordrism without those concept.
This why the authority of force and legitimicy are conected but are not the same, they dont come from the same source and is very cynical to belive it.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

arrested by a citizen performing a citizen's arrest!
Yeah you can't just slap the cuffs on entire federal agency,unless congress says something
have a listen and have a link to my discord server