A position of non-violence is incompatible with the idea of political solutions to social problems. The state, as we know it, ultimately has only one tool for controlling behavior, it can legitimately kill individual people. All other punishments are premised on this power. Until this is understood, the mass of humanity will remain the the impoverished slaves and servants of a tiny parasitic ruling class and will, perversely, thank them for the “safety” they provide.
If you oppose the non-violent position, then you will only ever contribute to problems stemming from violence. While you may point to a temporary victory–a political solution that “solved” a social problem–growing from the “solution” like bamboo shoots will be dozens, hundreds, thousands of resulting problems, each begging for a new political solution.
I’ve encountered alot of anger around this argument. Almost nobody, especially on the left, wants to be in a position of preferring violent solutions to non-violent. Yet how can one logically argue that support of state solutions is anything but the preference for violent solutions (answer: you can’t).
This puts the angry person in the position of having to create an imaginary world in which violence and only violence can stave off apocalyptic disaster. In this fiction, attempting, or even beginning to attempt to organize voluntarily to address social problems leads immediately to a fate worse than death–a world of chaos and violence in which everyone good dies at the hands of the evil, mad and powerful.
These arguments, lunatic as they are, can be persuasive because a) no matter how horrifying real-life state atrocities are, the apocalypse is worse and b) they rely on fear, a historically reliable way of overriding rational thought and bringing debate to an end.
A novel position came up in a conversation recently that simultaneously surprised and delighted me. It is worth addressing because it is the only alternative to the fear based response. The position is that the state doesn’t need to use violence but could be reconstituted in such a way that it is a voluntary organization. In principle, how can I have any problem with that? If the state renounces violence in favor of voluntary cooperation, it will cease to be a remnant of stone-age barbarism and become a part of the future of humanity. By my definition, it would no longer be a state at that point, but I would be happy concede to calling it a state if it is ever brought into being.
I don’t know how you can say that the state’s “only” has one tool, and that’s the ability to kill. The state can also appropriate funds, and imprison. Now, I’ve heard more than one libertarian argue that stems from violence (as taxation and arrests are a form of violence against a person) and I can see that, in some sort of messed-up way, but that isn’t killing.
And, I think the state is voluntary. If you don’t like living in a country, you can move to another one (or a place that is only a “country” in the loosest of terms). No one is forced to stay in a city, state, or country by law or by threat of violence (though, I am sympathetic to the idea that financial constraints do come to bear).
Oh, bullshit. We’re social creatures, there exists a social fabric between us, and the state can exert an influence on that.
I’m all for calling out state violence, but do you really think that, say, public education either (1) has no effect on society at all, or (2) only has an effect on society to the degree that schools use violence to further the state’s ends?
Or take courts ruling in favor of allowing gay marriage. I know that various church leaders are fond of saying that these rulings mean that gay marriage is being forced down their throats—at gunpoint! But those are, y’know, paranoid delusions. (Or, more likely, they’re a calculated message designed to produce an irrational response, since their actual fear—legalized gay marriage will lead to the propagation of socially accepted and positively-aligned queer images, and further social recognition and normalization of gay people and our relationships—doesn’t sound particularly terrifying. Which would be another instance of the state affecting behaviour through policy.)
What, were you talking to the ghost of Robert Nozick? It sounds nice. Sure, the state could be reconstituted as a voluntary organization. And then it could give out hot and cold running pot and puppies. Without addressing the how of it, it’s no more than a vacuous suggestion.
In addition to which, after the initial high passes, a voluntary state may stop looking like such a shiny thing. For example, the U.S. currently sports a completely voluntary health insurance system! To a first approximation, nobody thinks this was a good idea.
Iran: love it or leave it.
[...] kill its citizens. I realize that I’m repeating myself, but there seemed to be some disagreement over my claim and I thought it worth while to clarify my position and attempt to come to some understanding [...]
Test!