[Retra]

I'm going to quote a previous comment of mine here, because I think your rhetoric is shallow:

>Violence is usually too far removed from the relevant abstractions. It's not difficult to see violence behind everything, because rules don't mean much if they aren't enforced, and it's all too easy to conflate violence with a threat of violence, or a threat of force with a threat of violence, etc.

> But that's not a very useful perspective; a well-functioning society filters violence so that it is only applied when things go seriously awry, and most of us should only ever threatened by minor inconveniences. To focus on violence is to be reductive; it is like trying to talk about programming in terms of electromagnetic laws -- yes, computers ultimately run on electricity, and social powers are ultimately enforced through violence, but the abstractions we've built atop those facts are actually very relevant and useful.

[geggam]

Now you are saying a specific group of people get to define acceptable violence.

This is insane... who defines that group ? Are all govts legitimate ? Do all govts get to define violence ?

There is no ethical violence or all violence is ethical because your reasons arent more valid than someone elses

[Retra]

I am not saying that. I'm saying that considering the government to act only violently is a gross mischaracterization of reality such that even if you define things such that it is technically true, it is not a useful position to take.

My government has never forced me to do anything with a threat of violence -- I have been threatened with different manners of obvious inconvenience, but if that is no more acceptable to you than an actual threat of violence, then I'm afraid that is an unproductive, reductive, and uncompromising opinion.

[geggam]

If you commit a victimless crime (speeding) and the agent of the state fears for his life while talking to you... you are dead.

How is that not violent ?