No one else denies this or doesn't believe it's true, I hasten to add. For most of us, we think that this is a good thing, but also such an obvious thing that it doesn't need to be mentioned.
The people who keep mentioning it are people who think it's a bad, bad thing. They want everyone to have access to violence at all times.
The sane majority does not.
No. If your going to targrt political stratas, don't be narrow sighted.
The BLM and Antifa riots of "Defund the police" is exactly about the same concern, and supporters caused widespread violence to prove that point. There's a different reason, but many prominent Democrats urged those protests on, making it more broad than just some leftists commies.
The major difference is that BLM/antifa targeted local police with a national organization and got their way in many places, whereas conservatives are weary of the federal government are just some disorganized people that become easily targeted by the feds.
It's also worth mentioning that '0' and 'many' are the only options that offer even the possibility of uniformly distributed means of violence. IMO the population has highest security when violence is not monopolized by a privileged elite such as police officers and armed forces.
>society is propped up by future expectations. This includes the value of government money.
Then I think Ludwig has a point here. It's constantly touted that USD value is propped up in part because you have to pay taxes with it and backed by Nobel Peace Prize winners who bomb kids with drones from 5000 miles away. Thinking "hey some powerful people will toss me in a cage if I don't get this paper" may create real economic incentives but maybe we should be thinking about which incentives we want to be creating.
*Note: I fought in the civil war (YPG) in Syria. People I were with were much freer under civil war than when Assad controlled country.
I have no idea where you came up with "Many is civil war". Quite the opposite. Civil war erupts when one entity has a monopoly on violence and enough people decide that they've had quite enough of that, thank you very much.
There are all sorts of sayings. Is this one true?
The United States is the most heavily armed country of any size in the world. It is also more heavily armed than any time in its past.
And yet politeness appears to be at an all-time low. Certainly, a lot of political figures say things that are just astonishingly rude and horrible and false, things that would have destroyed their careers even twenty years ago but seem to make them very popular today.
It seems that saying is wildly false.
> I have no idea where you came up with "Many is civil war".
Probably they are knowledgeable about history, as their statement is simply true.
> Civil war erupts when one entity has a monopoly on violence and enough people decide that they've had quite enough of that, thank you very much.
I'm baffled as to how this makes sense to you.
How exactly do these people "decide they have had enough of that" without abrogating the states monopoly on violence? Surely by the time you get to civil war, there are _two sides fighting_??
It's like you just cut and paste a lot of slogans and stop thinking critically there.
I really suggesting reading some history.
In my view, society is propped up by future expectations. This includes the value of government money.