Also that monopoly has been somewhat eliminated with the increasing development of technology that allows for killing without consequences. Drones, rigged explosives, remote detonation, incendiary devices, autonomous firearms, so on. (Developments of improvised firearms, explosives, and incendiary devices with common materials has also contributed to this, along with DIY drone construction).
At this point the correcting factor is if a state is able to control the collective perception or will of a population to a point where pacification is possible (China or UK’s surveillance states, for instance). But that is not a viable long term solution due to it simply bottling the frustrations of the populace rather than extinguishing them.
After all, in JFK’s famous words, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”. With ideas able to be spread anywhere, no ideal can be stamped out for good, on any segment of the ideological spectrum.
Sucks for those who wish for a cooperative world, I suppose.
Based on your first couple of sentences, I feel like you don’t understand what the concept of the government possessing the monopoly on violence means… Like, in terms of that role socially (as in, for society) itself, or in practical terms. I’m particularly confused by you seeming to assert that technological advancement somehow had altered/was altering this… Governments have used - and I’m sure will continue to use - all of the things you mentioned and a great many more to maintain their monopoly of violence. It isn’t an actual office somewhere or anything technology can necessarily supplant, it’s more of a social construct/contract
Also that monopoly has been somewhat eliminated with the increasing development of technology that allows for killing without consequences. Drones, rigged explosives, remote detonation, incendiary devices, autonomous firearms, so on. (Developments of improvised firearms, explosives, and incendiary devices with common materials has also contributed to this, along with DIY drone construction).
At this point the correcting factor is if a state is able to control the collective perception or will of a population to a point where pacification is possible (China or UK’s surveillance states, for instance). But that is not a viable long term solution due to it simply bottling the frustrations of the populace rather than extinguishing them.
After all, in JFK’s famous words, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”. With ideas able to be spread anywhere, no ideal can be stamped out for good, on any segment of the ideological spectrum.
Sucks for those who wish for a cooperative world, I suppose.
Based on your first couple of sentences, I feel like you don’t understand what the concept of the government possessing the monopoly on violence means… Like, in terms of that role socially (as in, for society) itself, or in practical terms. I’m particularly confused by you seeming to assert that technological advancement somehow had altered/was altering this… Governments have used - and I’m sure will continue to use - all of the things you mentioned and a great many more to maintain their monopoly of violence. It isn’t an actual office somewhere or anything technology can necessarily supplant, it’s more of a social construct/contract