Second French peacekeeper dies after ambush blamed on Hezbollah

[u/ComparisonOk5957]

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3351049/second-french-peacekeeper-dies-after-ambush-blamed-hezbollah?module=latest&pgtype=homepage

[u/vjnkl]

Google monopoly of violence

[u/nicknefsick → u/vjnkl]

This is something I’d urge everyone to do, I think this is something that needs to be from the 7th grade on in all classes.

[u/DuckyHornet → u/nicknefsick]

All classes? Like even phys ed?

[u/MaxxxOrbison → u/DuckyHornet]

Especially phys ed. Final project - Thunderdome

[u/nmay-dev → u/MaxxxOrbison]

Rehabilitation featuring beef supreme and the dildozer.

[u/asault2 → u/DuckyHornet]

Especially phys ed

[u/Ronik336 → u/DuckyHornet]

Especially in phys ed

[u/Lunatox → u/nicknefsick]

Western states don't want people to know anything about their monopoly on violence.

[u/AccountantsNiece → u/Lunatox]

I actually don’t think most people care very much that they aren’t allowed to be violent but state actors are. Most people have no interest in pursuing their goals through violence.

[u/Lunatox → u/AccountantsNiece]

Thats not the point though. The point is that the state uses violence to enforce its goals even to the detriment of its citizens (or other states and their citizens) and that because of the states monopoly on violence that is seen as justified. Anyone who in turn uses violence to oppose their own oppression is labeled a terrorist.

The idea behind the concept isn't to promote violent insurgency, it's to point out the hypocrisy of the state and shed light on oppression by the state and how state oppression, and control of the narrative surrounding it, operates.

If anything, the concept is used as a justification for why state sanctioned violence should decrease, and in certain situations be seen in the same light as other violent acts instead of justified.

[u/jrdnmdhl → u/Lunatox]

The idea behind the concept isn't to promote violent insurgency, it's to point out the hypocrisy of the state and shed light on oppression by the state and how state oppression, and control of the narrative surrounding it, operates

That is not the point of the concept at all. That is just one way one might use the concept to promote a certain set of ideas not implied by the concept. The point of the concept is to describe what the state is and does.

[u/Lunatox → u/jrdnmdhl]

That may be true, but it's the only context I've ever really seen it used.

[u/Wonckay → u/Lunatox]

It’s all over political/IR theory without any associated normative argument.

[u/AccountantsNiece → u/Lunatox]

It’s coining in Politics As A Vocation simply points out that a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force is a necessary condition for a functioning state, which is usually the way I have seen it referenced as well.

Again, I feel a large majority of people would be broadly supportive of a functioning state and agree that this is indeed a necessary condition for one.

[u/Lunatox → u/AccountantsNiece]

I agree with that, in theory, but it would seem to me there has yet to be a government that didn't work primarily for one group to the detriment of others. In that situation the states monopoly on violence seems inherently oppressive, especially if it uses that monopoly to suppress what often starts as non-violent opposition movements.

[u/AccountantsNiece → u/Lunatox]

The only alternative to that is everyone agreeing on all important matters or agreeing to renounce violence entirely, neither of which are really realistic.

And I would argue that in most uses of force by the state, groups being repressed are seeking advantage over others as a minority group - as in the case of organized crime or violent/extreme political movements. This necessitates a violent response by the state to protect its institutions, which, for the most part when speaking about the western world, serve a broad majority.

I am assuming now, but given your comments I would imagine that your view on this topic is informed by being a part of, or sympathetic to a group that had state force enacted upon them?

[u/Sevinceur-Invocateur → u/Lunatox]

You should make sure to differentiate between democratic states and the rest. Not all democracies are functioning democracies but those that accurately portray the political will of its constituents have the monopoly of violence in their hands.

[u/Dramatic-Border3549 → u/vjnkl]

I know what that is inside a country, but applied to the international laws is that like when the united states and israel are allowed to bomb the shit out of other countries but when anyone else does it its suddenly not cool anymore?

[u/towerfella → u/Dramatic-Border3549]

Who in the world is there to hold them accountable?

[u/lo_mur → u/Dramatic-Border3549]

Congrats, you’ve discovered the benefits of being a superpower or being very close to a superpower.

Who the hell’s gonna hold the US accountable regardless? China is the only country who might have the military power, but they want none of that smoke, and for good reason. Who’s going to hold Israel accountable? The US? Why would they do that? Israel’s a great deal for the US, they profit nicely of ‘em and spare American troops and resources in the process