Originally posted by decay
View Post
1. Nobody gets a monopoly on the use of violence, leaving it entirely up to individuals to use it when and where they want and in any quantity (anarchism).
2. State-sanctioned actors have a monopoly on violence, leaving it entirely up to them to use it when and where they want and in any quantity (authoritarianism).
What we have in the US and most western nations is a middle ground. The state and its enforcers are allowed to own a majority of the use of violence to uphold the rule of law, but it is both not exclusive (castle doctrines exist almost everywhere, "good samaritans" can KO a kidnapper if they encounter it happening, etc) and the police are mandated to only use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop the commission of a crime while not endangering themselves to an unreasonable degree. The rest is up to the judicial system once the police stop the criminal action. Clearly what we have is imperfect because sometimes people get arrested for shooting armed burglars and sometimes police behave as judge, jury and executioner without ever being punished.
The state also does not have any legal mandate to "in any quantity" in its use of force. There are prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, many places outlaw execution entirely and there is an entire framework for charging the enforcers with the crime of using too much force. Again, the implementation is not perfect, but the system is not even close to being designed as violently authoritarian.
Comment