Hacker News Reader

Comment by skinkestek | Hacker News Reader

> "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" would seem a good thing only if you think that distributing violence more widely should be a social goal.

I think that a reasonable and useful distinction can be made between

   "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence"

and

   distributing violence more widely should be a social goal.

The first would be every ideological 2nd amendment supporter (as opposed to criminal, practical, contrarian or stick-it-to-the-libs 2nd amendment supporters).

The second would be criminals.

View on HN

Here is a fuller expansion of the thinking behind my sentence you quote.

The usual construction is:

- in order to have a peaceful and ordered society, citizens renounce the use of violence and interact only by peaceful means

- citizens of a city/region/country delegate the use of violence to the government (the "sovereign state")

- the government's use of violence is carefully circumscribed by laws and use of governmental laws outside these circumstances is forbidden

Which ends up defining government as the agent with the exclusive authority to use violence in a geographic region. And by extension has a monopoly on the use of violence, for the safety and freedom of all concerned.

"Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence", in this interpretation, would be to say that some or all people have recourse to violence, and in the worst case are not restrained by law or government. It's in this sense that I think that "breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" amounts to distributing access to violence more widely.

The consistent application of these ideas would require that citizens not have the right to resist government application of force. In my view, the second amendment is not a carve-out of (i.e. an exception to) this doctrine if it is understood to be applicable to resisting force applied by other citizens, not by government.

Edit: just saw this now, and I think I understand what you mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41672534

Sorry, English is not my first language :-)

-----------

To try to explain were I come from in this discussion:

I live in one of the Nordic countries in the suburbs.

From what I know two of my immediate neighbors have firearms. I suspect there are a lot more nearby because gun ownership is very common and most people don't talk about it - I only know they have guns because they sometimes go hunting.)

Growing up I knew about three houses with complete, working assault rifles and emergency depots of ammo. (This was completely normal until a spectacular robbery were the robbers used stolen assault rifles early in the 2000s.)

Switzerland and Austria I understand is the same.

All three known as very peaceful countries.

From what I read most of the absolute worst crimes against humanity has happened by the government against the citizens, not by citizens against citizens.

I am aware of the risks of pervasive weapons ownership but I think of it as an insurance policy against much much worse problems.

So I feel quite confident that there is a huge difference between having access to violence and using violence.

> first would be every ideological 2nd amendment supporter

Owning a gun doesn't break the government's monopoly on violence because owning a gun isn't violent. Firing a gun at a shooting range isn't violent. (Most people don't consider hunting violence.)

Reasonable 2nd Amendment supporters grant the state its monopoly on violence. They just want the means by way to revoke it. (Or, more realistically, make its abuse more difficult.)

I would argue that the government's monopoly on violence is more about its power to engage in violence than literal acts of violence.

Ahh. Good point.

Around here people are often very well armed but only military and politice are allowed to use firearms.

> the government's monopoly on violence is more about its power to engage in violence than literal acts of violence

Power being capability and willingness. Guns give a private citizen capability, same as anyone who can make a fist. They do not extend to signalling a willingness to shoot someone. (Threats, on the other hand, are illegal. Partly because they're no fun for anyone involved. Partly because that crosses from potential to actual.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com