Antifa vs Anticom

[bdbdbd]

VGPolyglot said:

bdbdbd said:

You're looking at it from a different angle. VGPolyglot is suggesting there would be no centralised government, effectively leaving a power vacuum that nobody would fill, wheras you point out that someone else just filled the power vacuum that the old rule left behind. 

In a civil society, the government has a monopoly on violence (as in forcefully being able to maintain order if needed), in the form of police and military. He's suggesting that the existence of police and military by itself justifies violence against police and military.

I'm suggesting that those who support the status quo also support violence, as they support a system with a police force that keeps millions in jail, while there's a military that's present in over 100 countries and killing people in 7. Using violence to oppose this violence is valid, as that's the only way they're going to stop. They wouldn't have tanks, guns bombs, nukes and drones if they were just willing to go down peacefully. Obviously, there'll always be violence, but in a system that's based on cooperation instead of competition there should be much less of it.

The violence is used to maintain civil society. People are kept in jail to prevent them doing any more damage - either permanently or a set amount of time.

Now, as you talk about cooperation, isn't this excactly what countries like USA have been doing ever since WW2. If you think Russia is doing like shit today and USA or Germany or Japan is doing good, it's because USA, Germany and Japan have made better friends than Russia. Why do we have this system that's allowed to inflict violence on citizens, is because that's what people want. People want to be protected. They want their kids, friends and other relatives or close ones to be safe. If you can't act the way that other people in society are safe, you need to be removed from the society, either put in jail or expelled.