[pindab0ter]

> the definition of a state is the monopoly on violence over a particular territory

As a non-US reader, I have never encountered this definition where I live. I understand what is meant, but it seems very much like a fear inducing frame; state = violence.

Maybe this is because where I live we have a different relationship with our government and law enforcement than the U.S., but to me it’s not at all “not remotely controversial”, at least in the way it’s phrased.

[guerrilla]

It's the standard political science definition globally, originally from Max Weber (a founder of sociology) but obviously going back to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke (two of the founding theorists of liberalism.) Open any textbook or encyclopedia, even dictionary.

[mixmastamyk]

Yes, everyone getting the help they need is violence. Utopian (dystopian) ideals fall apart in the real world however. Note the link I posted above, would you raise a family in a place that enabled this atmosphere.

Now, if you are crazy and live on a deserted island it’s not a problem. On my doorstep is another story; the other 98% of us have a right to peace that overrides yours. We live in society and lose a few rights, the bargain is that we get more in return than we lost. The ill could be free to try to survive on their own if they don’t want to submit, but again we know they are not competent to make the decision by definition.

[guerrilla]

No, violence is violence.

[mixmastamyk]

The instigator here is clear. With your logic, rule of law would cease to exist. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't enjoy living in that world, even if you think you might.