Let’s talk about Antifa.

[bmwman91]

And as a corollary to that- given that we know our police state government is ready and willing to commit violence, should they have a monopoly on it?

Right. This is one of those foundational philosophical issues that is at the very root of every civilization. It would seem that there are two ends of the spectrum.
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.

[mrsleeve]

i'll never get tired of how you can't even spell "you're misinformed" properly

fairly sure thats not how I worded that.... but what ever.

[z31maniac]

And as a corollary to that- given that we know our police state government is ready and willing to commit violence, should they have a monopoly on it?

The greatest civil rights advocate in the US didn't believe in violent protest. And southern blacks went through real, actual struggle.

[z31maniac]

Oh course that's not to say that African Americans in the rest of the country didn't, but even more so in the south. And there are still plenty of areas that aren't much better even if it's not legal anymore.

[decay]

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).

How anarchism works in practice looks much more like a return to tribalism. Find a clan that works for you, support everyone in it, and if there's an issue between members, resolve it internally. Don't interact with the government if you don't have to.

I sort of don't get why this doesn't make sense to libertarians online, because when I sit down and have a conversation with one of them in person, they seem to agree on the core principles, other than they suffer from the delusion that they'd be just fine going it alone.

[decay]

The greatest civil rights advocate in the US didn't believe in violent protest. And southern blacks went through real, actual struggle.

hey did you know there are other countries?

if you learn about them a little bit, you notice an emerging historical trend- two things change a fucked-up ruling system.

war or violent revolt. neither of them work all the time, but they're shown to work more often than anything else.

see: france, *right now*.

[z31maniac]

hey did you know there are other countries?

if you learn about them a little bit, you notice an emerging historical trend- two things change a fucked-up ruling system.

war or violent revolt. neither of them work all the time, but they're shown to work more often than anything else.

see: france, *right now*.

I thought this thread was specifically about Antifa in the US my apologies.

The difference I see in France vs Antifa in the US is the level of support.

I have a hard time equating the spotty and low numbers of turnout for Antifa vs the consistent large number of people protesting Macron.

[decay]

I thought this thread was specifically about Antifa in the US my apologies.

well, *you* brought up the black civil rights movement... after that it seemed like drawing parallels was okay, i guess?

as for me, i suppose the difference in turnout is due to the motivations and character of the populace. they've had a bastille day, we haven't. realistically- if we ever do, it's going to start out localized, just by nature of our geography.

one example of what i'm talking about would be the stonewall riots in NYC at the end of the '60s. an event limited in scope, with very few actors, involving violence, that managed to at least affect a delta in the civil rights of an oppressed minority.

violence can be an option and still a last resort.

[z31maniac]

Bringing up MLK was in reference to the whole "violence being a means to an end." By bringing up the most important Civil Rights leader in US history, who accomplished more in that regard given his status and belief in non-violent protest, I felt was a worthy counterpoint.

Since that was a bit too nuanced:

If Antifa wants people to get behind them and follow their cause they need to change their tactics. Wearing masks, starting fights, and destroying private property isn't going to get the average person to sign up and say, "Well golly gee willickers, I like what these guys are doing."

[z31maniac]

they've had a bastille day, we haven't.

I'm a bit confused by this statement. I'm well aware of what happened on Bastille Day (which isn't even what the French themselves call the day), the casualties, and the French government then abolishing Feudalism and creating the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens.

[decay]

Bringing up MLK was in reference to the whole "violence being a means to an end." By bringing up the most important Civil Rights leader in US history, who accomplished more in that regard given his status and belief in non-violent protest, I felt was a worthy counterpoint.

It was. But Malcolm X's messaging resonated with people for a reason.

And your point wasn't "too nuanced", I just don't agree, which should surprise neither of us.

[frankenbeemer]

The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative.

—Malcolm X

[decay]

The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative.

—Malcolm X

at the time, he wasn't wrong.

maybe still isn't.

i'm not a liberal so i don't have a dog in that fight, but i'm curious:

is your argument that we should listen to Malcolm, or that he was wrong?

[gwb72tii]

How anarchism works in practice looks much more like a return to tribalism. Find a clan that works for you, support everyone in it, and if there's an issue between members, resolve it internally. Don't interact with the government if you don't have to.

I sort of don't get why this doesn't make sense to libertarians online, because when I sit down and have a conversation with one of them in person, they seem to agree on the core principles, other than they suffer from the delusion that they'd be just fine going it alone.

The issue isn’t with your theoretical principals, it’s with Antifa
Frankly I applaud your willingness to act and fight for your political viewpoints
It’s just that Antifa, as practiced, is not the best choice. The membership of Antifa, as practiced today, is facist.
Oh, the irony

[decay]

It’s just that Antifa, as practiced, is not the best choice. The membership of Antifa, as practiced today, is facist.

Ok, I would like clarification on what you mean when you say that.

Is it the de-platforming thing? Getting Alex Jones and Richard Spencer off of youtube and twitter?