alt Hacker NewsSure, you can't monopolize violence under the state (and enforce laws) without the state demonstrating its willingness to use said violence (ie. forcibly put people who violate in prison or use actual violence against them if they resist).
But OP was referring to political violence...which...how do I put this delicately...let's just say political polarization has led certain very-online members of the US populist-left, some of who hang out here for example, to try to expand the Overton Window into bolshevism. See also: Luigi fans.
My point is that the most likely outcome of violent political overthrow is not utopia. The most likely outcome is a failed state and another violent overthrow. Political violence doesn't create anything, it only destroys. And creating is the hard part.
It's like saying; "at the birth of all successful people was a person who shit their pants. So why not try shitting your pants as an adult?"
Yes, one always precedes the other. But it has no correlation to whether the person becomes successful or not.
Replies
My guy, the vast majority of political violence is committed by the right. It's not zero from the left, but it is much less.
>OP was referring to political violence
The dichotomy of "political" and "apolitical" violence is a false one, and one of the worst thought-terminating clichees of the 21st century. It's telling that "political violence" always seems to refer to violence that isn't the result of the processes of democratic politics.
Nobody's calling out cops shooting protestors with "less lethal" rounds or ICE officers riddling cars with bullets "political violence", for some reason.
I am also talking about political violence. Specifically I'm arguing against monopolizing violence under any entity, as it leads to injustice.