EldenLord@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Non-violent protests still need to come with a credible threat of becoming violent if the protesters’ safety is being attacked or if their human rights are compromised.
EldenLord@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Non-violent protests still need to come with a credible threat of becoming violent if the protesters’ safety is being attacked or if their human rights are compromised.
fishos@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s a social contract basically: we will be peaceful as long as you allow us to remain peaceful.
EldenLord@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yes, basically the individual gives up their sovereign monopoly of violence to the state in exchange for protection and representation through the constitution. Break that contract and people have the moral right to oppose “legal” violence carried out through a dictatorship.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 week ago
I agree broadly with the idea that the state’s legitimacy relies on the appearance that they wield their violence justly, but I think you’re giving the state too much credit when you frame it as a fair and considered exchange of power.
The state has had all of us under its purview since birth, it has pumped us full of pro-hierarchy, anti-autonomy, anti-social propaganda and it wields its violence more to prevent insurgency than it does to protect us.
There is no “social contract”, nothing that I ever signed anyway, and even if there were, contract law invalidates any contract signed under duress. The concept of the social contract is just yet more hierarchical propaganda. It’s a vague, handwavey vibe to obscure the fact that we really aren’t given a meaningful option to leave.
The state relies on not just the appearance of legitimacy, but the appearance of absolute power. Both are illusions, and can be opposed by organised people directly building mutual aid on the ground. The more we meet one another’s needs for security the less we need the state and the more people can see it for the charade that it is.