We are accustomed to classify States according to the different ways in which “the supreme might” is distributed. If an individual has it—monarchy; if all have it—democracy; etc. Supreme might then! Might against whom? Against the individual and his “self-will.” The State practices “violence,” the individual must not do so. The State’s behavior is violence, and it calls its violence “law”; that of the individual, “crime.” Crime, then,—so the individual’s violence is called; and only by crime does he overcome the State’s violence when he thinks that the State is not above him, but he above the State.
- Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own
Sort of? There is state-sanctioned violence that’s not criminal (self-defence for e.g.), and plenty of state violence that is (excessive force, war crimes, etc)
Does self-defence extend to the states definition of property? Who enforces laws around excessive force or war crimes? Seems the fox is in the henhouse when violence is monopolized.
Sometimes. Sometimes it’s only about defending one’s own body/the bodies of others.
The state, of course. A bit off topic as the only point I was making is that it’s not so cut and dry as to what violence is criminal.
Well yeah, but I’m not sure that’s possible to entirely avoid in any system. You can definitely lessen the effect though.