The Name of Love
Far Right Nutjob
Just to be clear, a steelman argument is when you fix the problems with your opponent's arguments and be as generous as possible by examining the strongest possible version of his position. I don't actually believe this, so bear with me. I want to hear your thoughts on this. I came across this argument on Twitter, and I'm reworking it for this platform.
We understand that the State is, under the liberal formulation, the monopoly on violence. No more and no less. If the "State" does not have a monopoly on violence, then it is not the true State. Rather, something else is.
State = Violence
Furthermore, the State is a collection of laws and people who implement said laws. Behind every law is a threat of violence. Jaywalk? You're getting fined. Don't pay? Getting arrested. Resist? Violence. Every law ends up like this in the end.
Law = State = Violence
Now, the States we live in are democratic insofar as the laws of the State are an expression of public opinion. All laws in a democratic system are determined by electorally chosen politicians, who are chosen by popular vote. Popular vote is no more than a quantification of the public opinion.
Public Opinion = Law
In his work, Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann does a great job detailing how public opinion is formed. It's an excellent read, but TL;DR: public opinion is shaped via media, social groups, and emotion. The media you consume and the social groups you inhabit will determine your opinions on a given policy.
Media/Social Groups = Public Opinion
Now, the media and your social groups transmit their views - and thereby influence Public Opinion - via the written, spoken, or displayed word.
Words = Media/Social Groups
Therefore, words are used by the media and social groups in order to sway public opinion, which in turn determines elections, which results in the creation or negation of laws. Laws which, upon inspection, are no more or less than descriptions of how violence will be used, for what purposes, against whom, and in order to protect what.
Words = Media/Social Groups = Public Opinion = Law = State = Violence
Therefore, Words = Violence
In a democracy where the state has a monopoly on violence, this logic seems watertight. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
We understand that the State is, under the liberal formulation, the monopoly on violence. No more and no less. If the "State" does not have a monopoly on violence, then it is not the true State. Rather, something else is.
State = Violence
Furthermore, the State is a collection of laws and people who implement said laws. Behind every law is a threat of violence. Jaywalk? You're getting fined. Don't pay? Getting arrested. Resist? Violence. Every law ends up like this in the end.
Law = State = Violence
Now, the States we live in are democratic insofar as the laws of the State are an expression of public opinion. All laws in a democratic system are determined by electorally chosen politicians, who are chosen by popular vote. Popular vote is no more than a quantification of the public opinion.
Public Opinion = Law
In his work, Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann does a great job detailing how public opinion is formed. It's an excellent read, but TL;DR: public opinion is shaped via media, social groups, and emotion. The media you consume and the social groups you inhabit will determine your opinions on a given policy.
Media/Social Groups = Public Opinion
Now, the media and your social groups transmit their views - and thereby influence Public Opinion - via the written, spoken, or displayed word.
Words = Media/Social Groups
Therefore, words are used by the media and social groups in order to sway public opinion, which in turn determines elections, which results in the creation or negation of laws. Laws which, upon inspection, are no more or less than descriptions of how violence will be used, for what purposes, against whom, and in order to protect what.
Words = Media/Social Groups = Public Opinion = Law = State = Violence
Therefore, Words = Violence
In a democracy where the state has a monopoly on violence, this logic seems watertight. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.