- Bryan Maloney
- Rockport, TX
- United States
Laboratory Coordinator, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi
This conversation will close in 1 days, 10 hours and 20 minutes, on 03/13/2014 11:10:59 PM UTC.
Must government rest upon violence? If so, what are the implications?
All extant governments rest upon violence. That is, there is no government that does not have at its disposal the means of violence, willingness to use such means, and desire to restrict or even monopolize the means of violence. Furthermore, these means of violence have always turned out to be used more than once in a self-serving fashion, of government against the people, even in countries where this is theoretically "impossible"--if nothing else, some official starts to treat a police or military entity like a private gang of thugs. What is more common is convenience of government is given automatic priority over rights of the people and the means of violence are used to enforce this convenience.
Is this a fundamental necessity of government? Must government have at its disposal not only means of violence but willingness to use them? If the answer to this question is "yes", will this always mean that these means of violence will end up at some time or another being used against the best interests of the people?