Fuck the State

[eumaas]

Coward? Hero.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8244186.stm

The first duty is to one's conscience. The maternal grandfather of a childhood friend was drafted into the German army in WWII and surrendered to the British in Africa the first chance he got. Spent the rest of the war as a POW then immigrated to Canada.

Good man.

[Dr. Medulla]

I feel protected.
http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/09/04/59-shots/
http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/09/05/cops-keep-us-safe/

As with what happened in the Vancouver airport tasering, what ends up biting the cops in the ass is less the abuse of power but the cover-up/lack of consequences. That's where people lose their faith in the concept of policing, where they realize that it ain't a few bad apples but the whole goddamn system that protects them.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/135952.html

There's at least five, usually up to a dozen, of these kinds of incidents a week I hear about. I can't help but wonder about all the ones that never make it to press.

Me too. Reddit normally has a new one, usually about tasers, every day. I keep wondering when we'll get to the point to demand the banning of tasers. Cops have demonstrated to my satisfaction that enough of them can't be trusted, that they use it with the least amount of provocation (or none whatsoever) rather than as a last resort. If it means that some cops are injured or killed because they didn't have that option for subduing a suspect, well, blame their comrades who abused the tool over and over.

[Wolter]

Coward? Hero.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8244186.stm

The first duty is to one's conscience. The maternal grandfather of a childhood friend was drafted into the German army in WWII and surrendered to the British in Africa the first chance he got. Spent the rest of the war as a POW then immigrated to Canada.

Good man.

Seconded.

Also, re: the article: About fucking time.

[Rat Patrol]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0911/p02s15-usgn.html

[Dr. Medulla]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0911/p02s15-usgn.html

But the interests of the gun industry aren't always the same as those of civil libertarians, many of whom are gun owners, says Mr. Patrick. The issue of police militarization is of particular concern, he says. "There's been a sort of creeping sociological phenomenon out there, where people are wondering, 'How many guns do the police need?' "

I agree. I'd also add, however, "How many guns does the average person need?"

[eumaas]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0911/p02s15-usgn.html

But the interests of the gun industry aren't always the same as those of civil libertarians, many of whom are gun owners, says Mr. Patrick. The issue of police militarization is of particular concern, he says. "There's been a sort of creeping sociological phenomenon out there, where people are wondering, 'How many guns do the police need?' "

I agree. I'd also add, however, "How many guns does the average person need?"

Are you equating the two? I don't think that's reasonable--remember, the government has the monopoly on legitimate use of force. Big power differential between the two.

(What I'm saying is there may be good reason for the police to have fewer weapons, and there may be good reason for the average person to have fewer weapons, but that those are different reasons.)

[Dr. Medulla]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0911/p02s15-usgn.html

But the interests of the gun industry aren't always the same as those of civil libertarians, many of whom are gun owners, says Mr. Patrick. The issue of police militarization is of particular concern, he says. "There's been a sort of creeping sociological phenomenon out there, where people are wondering, 'How many guns do the police need?' "

I agree. I'd also add, however, "How many guns does the average person need?"

Are you equating the two? I don't think that's reasonable--remember, the government has the monopoly on legitimate use of force. Big power differential between the two.

(What I'm saying is there may be good reason for the police to have fewer weapons, and there may be good reason for the average person to have fewer weapons, but that those are different reasons.)

No, I'm not strictly equating the two, and for the reason you state. But there is still a common root to both, and that is devoting more and more resources to a tool of violence, to normalizing the violence in one's environment. State and individual may have different reasons for amassing weapons, but the combined results are the same.

[eumaas]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0911/p02s15-usgn.html

But the interests of the gun industry aren't always the same as those of civil libertarians, many of whom are gun owners, says Mr. Patrick. The issue of police militarization is of particular concern, he says. "There's been a sort of creeping sociological phenomenon out there, where people are wondering, 'How many guns do the police need?' "

I agree. I'd also add, however, "How many guns does the average person need?"

Are you equating the two? I don't think that's reasonable--remember, the government has the monopoly on legitimate use of force. Big power differential between the two.

(What I'm saying is there may be good reason for the police to have fewer weapons, and there may be good reason for the average person to have fewer weapons, but that those are different reasons.)

No, I'm not strictly equating the two, and for the reason you state. But there is still a common root to both, and that is devoting more and more resources to a tool of violence, to normalizing the violence in one's environment. State and individual may have different reasons for amassing weapons, but the combined results are the same.

Well, there are a few distinctions yet to remember. We can talk of reducing aggregate violence in society, but there are two kinds of violence, private and state, where state use of violence is always presumed legitimate. Importantly, though, because state violence is seen as legitimate, it is moreover used to suppress private violence. People define state violence out of aggregate violence. So when it comes to gun ownership, advocates of gun control believe in using state force (violence and threat of violence) to reduce aggregate violence. The assumption is that guns in private hands are more apt to be used in an immoral way. My problems here are that 1. state violence is by far the more routine of the two by virtue of its very acceptability in statist society, 2. in gun control you rarely see a concurrent move to decommission the state--even if we concede legitimacy to police and military gun ownership, if civilians are totally disarmed, why should the police remain thus armed so heavily? 3. using the more routine form of violence to suppress the other is itself a routine moral calculation that I do not believe is seriously questioned, 4. that moral calculation ought to be questioned in light of the history of the state, especially in the 20th century where the state acquired a much greater ability to apply violence to such a degree that it absolutely dwarfs the private capacity for violence, and where concomitantly the state has engaged in the worst atrocities in human history. The combined results may be the same (I'm not sure as I haven't given that my own thought as yet) as you say, but I don't think each element, taken on its own, implies the same result. Furthermore, I question whether reducing private capacity for violence by means of state violence entails the result (reduced aggregate violence) desired if one includes state violence as part of aggregate violence in light of the four points I mention above.

Again, I'm interested in reducing aggregate violence (it's one of the reasons I oppose the state), and recently I've committed to nonviolent resistance, but I don't think my concerns are unreasonable.

[Dr. Medulla]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0911/p02s15-usgn.html

But the interests of the gun industry aren't always the same as those of civil libertarians, many of whom are gun owners, says Mr. Patrick. The issue of police militarization is of particular concern, he says. "There's been a sort of creeping sociological phenomenon out there, where people are wondering, 'How many guns do the police need?' "

I agree. I'd also add, however, "How many guns does the average person need?"

Are you equating the two? I don't think that's reasonable--remember, the government has the monopoly on legitimate use of force. Big power differential between the two.

(What I'm saying is there may be good reason for the police to have fewer weapons, and there may be good reason for the average person to have fewer weapons, but that those are different reasons.)

No, I'm not strictly equating the two, and for the reason you state. But there is still a common root to both, and that is devoting more and more resources to a tool of violence, to normalizing the violence in one's environment. State and individual may have different reasons for amassing weapons, but the combined results are the same.

Well, there are a few distinctions yet to remember. We can talk of reducing aggregate violence in society, but there are two kinds of violence, private and state, where state use of violence is always presumed legitimate. Importantly, though, because state violence is seen as legitimate, it is moreover used to suppress private violence. People define state violence out of aggregate violence. So when it comes to gun ownership, advocates of gun control believe in using state force (violence and threat of violence) to reduce aggregate violence. The assumption is that guns in private hands are more apt to be used in an immoral way. My problems here are that 1. state violence is by far the more routine of the two by virtue of its very acceptability in statist society, 2. in gun control you rarely see a concurrent move to decommission the state--even if we concede legitimacy to police and military gun ownership, if civilians are totally disarmed, why should the police remain thus armed so heavily? 3. using the more routine form of violence to suppress the other is itself a routine moral calculation that I do not believe is seriously questioned, 4. that moral calculation ought to be questioned in light of the history of the state, especially in the 20th century where the state acquired a much greater ability to apply violence to such a degree that it absolutely dwarfs the private capacity for violence, and where concomitantly the state has engaged in the worst atrocities in human history. The combined results may be the same (I'm not sure as I haven't given that my own thought as yet) as you say, but I don't think each element, taken on its own, implies the same result. Furthermore, I question whether reducing private capacity for violence by means of state violence entails the result (reduced aggregate violence) desired if one includes state violence as part of aggregate violence in light of the four points I mention above.

Again, I'm interested in reducing aggregate violence (it's one of the reasons I oppose the state), and recently I've committed to nonviolent resistance, but I don't think my concerns are unreasonable.

I appreciate your critique and would respond that my attitude is covered mostly by points 2 and 3—the notion of normalizing violence by accumulation is a problem in both individuals and state agents, and that we need to be seeking/demanding reductions in both. As an example, taser (ab)use has grown as its become a more common tool for police. Taser violence has become ever normalized with its availability to more and more cops. Reduce the tools of violence for everyone all around, make violence a more abnormal state in society.

[eumaas]

Thanks for the thoughts, Hooky.

I've summarized (sometimes by means of copy and paste ) my general thoughts on guns as an anarchist on Flex's blog:
http://ccontrol.blogspot.com/2009/09/ha ... m-gun.html

EDIT: Whoops, forgot to write in a paragraph at the top...

[Flex]

Thanks for the thoughts, Hooky.

I've summarized (sometimes by means of copy and paste ) my general thoughts on guns as an anarchist on Flex's blog:
http://ccontrol.blogspot.com/2009/09/ha ... m-gun.html

I knew if I just waited long enough someone else would star providing content so I could just sit back and let the money roll in...

[eumaas]

Thanks for the thoughts, Hooky.

I've summarized (sometimes by means of copy and paste ) my general thoughts on guns as an anarchist on Flex's blog:
http://ccontrol.blogspot.com/2009/09/ha ... m-gun.html

I knew if I just waited long enough someone else would star providing content so I could just sit back and let the money roll in...

I actually need to add an intro to that piece. I totally forgot. I just cooked and ate a huge delicious steak so my mind is elsewhere.

[Wolter]

Thanks for the thoughts, Hooky.

I've summarized (sometimes by means of copy and paste ) my general thoughts on guns as an anarchist on Flex's blog:
http://ccontrol.blogspot.com/2009/09/ha ... m-gun.html

I knew if I just waited long enough someone else would star providing content so I could just sit back and let the money roll in...

Unfortunately, I can only pay you with my Bowie credit card.

[Flex]

I actually need to add an intro to that piece. I totally forgot. I just cooked and ate a huge delicious steak so my mind is elsewhere.

Completely understandable.

[Wolter]

I actually need to add an intro to that piece. I totally forgot. I just cooked and ate a huge delicious steak so my mind is elsewhere.

Completely understandable.

HUGE, DELICIOUS STEAK: The Official Meal of Assjack.