regarding violence, I oppose its initiation. I’ve had disagreements with some people in the past because I believe in self-defense. One can exert force (by which I mean energy) in many ways; there is such a thing as productive force, for example, by which I mean “force that creates” rather than “force that is good or helpful”. Violence – destructive force – isn’t capable of creating anything, and instead can only destroy and take away from what has been created, be it an idea, a constructed object, or a life. The only time I consider violence as acceptable (not ‘good’ or ‘right,’ but necessary) is when one is incapable of creating something new because a preexisting object or group consistently destroys what one is trying to create. I don’t like it, and I believe we should try to avoid it whenever possible, but I don’t like taking it off the table entirely. I do believe that the use of violence against another person is rarely, if ever, the only option, and one must pursue all conceivable avenues of productive force before the alternative is considered.

I’ll keep reading and occasionally I might throw in my two cents. I find discussions like these more stimulating than homework, so you’ll see me whenever I feel like not doing the work I probably should be doing.

-Seth

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and educated comment. I’m glad you appreciate my blog so far, and that you seem in general agreement with my post. I was especially interested in your comment about how the state legitimises its use of destructive force through the subjugation of those who oppose it, and I certainly agree that there is a lack of transparency on the part of the state about their conduct in general. You may have noticed that I come at a lot of these issues from a Christian perspective, or specifically a Christian anarchist perspective. Because I feel that Christ commands me to love my enemies, I don’t feel like I can either exact violence on others myself or else pledge allegiance to those institutions who use it to sustain themselves (ie, governments). I realise, however, that many people who don’t consider themselves religious in any respect may also come to similar moral conclusions for slightly different reasons, and I think the agreement comes from our critique of the how the nation state organises itself. One thing that did come to mind from your comment is the fact that governments rely upon the use of lies to further their agenda, so the violence doesn’t just come on a physical level but also on a psychological level as well. Police institutions necessarily act not only through means of violence but also through the use of oaths, undercover operations, covert surveillance, and intelligence formed, as you say, through non-democratic means. In simpler terms, the police service almost becomes like its own kind of cult, demanding a level of conformity whereby any individuality or personal ethics are intentionally shaped and indoctrinated to suit the needs of the institutional authority.

I hope you come back at some point, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on some of the other stuff I talk about!

Your “fluffy hippie” friend,
Adam.

hahahahaha. that made me laugh harder than it probably should have.

as far as the varied responses of police at different rallies, its a difficult question to answer without the answer being almost uselessly speculative. The question nonetheless warrants an answer, or at least a search for an answer. I think the idea that the cops’ response was due to information from state “intelligence” is funny, but funny in a ‘I have to laugh at this because if I don’t it’ll make me cry’ sort of way. Rather than state action being founded in truth for the purpose of promoting state legitimacy, (which would still act as a form of self-preservation of the abstract concept of state power,) the state’s construction of truth (or put simpler, the state’s lies) serves to legitimize the application of destructive force. This violence then reinforces state legitimacy through the subjugation of those who oppose it, and the state receives the same end result that truth would have achieved: legitimacy.

While anarchists find democratic institutions less than ideal, we are still huge fans of democratic discourse. Communicating in a fair and equal manner helps us collectively approach truth – either what actually is or what we wish to socially construct toward reality. state intelligence saying that one of many is going to do something destructive can’t be proven until after the fact, and if it doesn’t happen they can then say their presence prevented it from happening. THe problem lies in the lack of transparency of the statement; the problem is that this ‘truth’ provided to us by state intelligence is not a product of democratic discourse, and may not be truth at all.

Deception, according to Hannah Arendt, are “so very easy [to believe] up to a point, and so tempting. It never comes into a conflict with reason, because things could indeed have been as the liar maintains they were. Lies are often much more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear.” but I would stress that they are only easy to believe “up to a point,” for if one misleads too much, everything one says and does is suspected of attempting to mislead. Politics (in the US, at least,) has reached this point.

I kind of went off on a tangent, but I think most of what I said relates to what you’re talking about.

I like your writing, by the way. I stumbled across your blog today and, even when I don’t completely agree with you, I respect your presentation of opinion as being both clear and rational.