The phrase you use - I do not think it means what you think it means. (Especially not whatever fine this tool was dodging)
“Social scientists define state violence broadly, ranging from direct political violence and genocide to the redefinition of state violence as the neoliberal exit of the state from the provision of social services and the covert use of new technologies of citizen surveillance. State violence, and sometimes the state in and of itself, is clearly a social problem shaping not only the structure of governance but also citizenship and the quality of life of individuals and communities.“
I’m referring the Max Weber’s definition of the state. As the state has the only legitimate ability to use of violence. I’m sorry it doesn’t fit in directly with your definition, but what I was referring to in my original comment was that law is not magic, but rules enforced through the “legitimate violence” of the state.
This person could end up on the receiving end of that power if they do not do what the courts tell them to do, and they are apparently unaware of that because they have magical beliefs.
Thank you for the definition. Wasn’t trying to harp on it; wasn’t familiar with Max Weber (although I’m old enough to have dated his sister…) but the definition of “violence” in this regard still feels uncomfortably vague. I can see how Libertarians and SovCits could use such a wide brush to paint any picture they’d want.
Violence includes any coercive act, such as fines. Ultimately they’re backed by the threat of force since the state will take the fine without your consent if it gets that far.
These types of Laws are a guidebook for when and how the state uses violence in whatever capacity, and the procedures around legitimizing it.
I could be, but it exists as a legal term in English as well. In any event, being ordered to pay a fine doesn’t not remotely fit into the “state’s violence” remark from the commenter above (who, I might suggest, has their own agenda). State’s violence is generally reserved for acts of physical violence (eg, police over-response to a protest) and not being contemptuous / an asshole in court.
These people need to be in a stock in the center of town so others can learn from their ignorance.
What they’re getting at is that the “state” is the entity that is socially accepted to have a “monopoly on legitimate violence.” In this sense, the government asks you to pay a fine, okay, that’s not violence per se, but if you decline to pay it, you may be arrested, or if not directly, then your continued resistance to further attempts to collect the debt could result in your arrest. All government action is predicated on the underlying threat of violence at the end of a chain of resistance to their orders, and that violence will be acceptable the population. Other parties can only use violence in accordance with the agreed limits from the state.
I guess it’s not a useless paradigm, but it’s more anthropology than political science. It’s so fundamental and malleable as to be largely pointless from a policy standpoint, and it therefore allows everyone from cringey libertarians to literally insane SovCits to make bad faith arguments about how legitimate the state is.
The phrase you use - I do not think it means what you think it means. (Especially not whatever fine this tool was dodging)
“Social scientists define state violence broadly, ranging from direct political violence and genocide to the redefinition of state violence as the neoliberal exit of the state from the provision of social services and the covert use of new technologies of citizen surveillance. State violence, and sometimes the state in and of itself, is clearly a social problem shaping not only the structure of governance but also citizenship and the quality of life of individuals and communities.“
I’m referring the Max Weber’s definition of the state. As the state has the only legitimate ability to use of violence. I’m sorry it doesn’t fit in directly with your definition, but what I was referring to in my original comment was that law is not magic, but rules enforced through the “legitimate violence” of the state.
This person could end up on the receiving end of that power if they do not do what the courts tell them to do, and they are apparently unaware of that because they have magical beliefs.
Thank you for the definition. Wasn’t trying to harp on it; wasn’t familiar with Max Weber (although I’m old enough to have dated his sister…) but the definition of “violence” in this regard still feels uncomfortably vague. I can see how Libertarians and SovCits could use such a wide brush to paint any picture they’d want.
I believe they’re using it in the political philosophy sense: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Violence includes any coercive act, such as fines. Ultimately they’re backed by the threat of force since the state will take the fine without your consent if it gets that far.
These types of Laws are a guidebook for when and how the state uses violence in whatever capacity, and the procedures around legitimizing it.
Fair enough… Thank you for the link.
Might be from german “Staatsgewalt”, Gewalt would usually be violence, but here it’d be more accurately translated as force or power.
I could be, but it exists as a legal term in English as well. In any event, being ordered to pay a fine doesn’t not remotely fit into the “state’s violence” remark from the commenter above (who, I might suggest, has their own agenda). State’s violence is generally reserved for acts of physical violence (eg, police over-response to a protest) and not being contemptuous / an asshole in court.
These people need to be in a stock in the center of town so others can learn from their ignorance.
What they’re getting at is that the “state” is the entity that is socially accepted to have a “monopoly on legitimate violence.” In this sense, the government asks you to pay a fine, okay, that’s not violence per se, but if you decline to pay it, you may be arrested, or if not directly, then your continued resistance to further attempts to collect the debt could result in your arrest. All government action is predicated on the underlying threat of violence at the end of a chain of resistance to their orders, and that violence will be acceptable the population. Other parties can only use violence in accordance with the agreed limits from the state.
I guess it’s not a useless paradigm, but it’s more anthropology than political science. It’s so fundamental and malleable as to be largely pointless from a policy standpoint, and it therefore allows everyone from cringey libertarians to literally insane SovCits to make bad faith arguments about how legitimate the state is.
Ah, okay - and I agree with you it feels vague and of bad faith, so it makes sense sovcits would rally around it.