
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Statism Kritik Addendum - WNDI 2006

Statism Kritik Addendum - WNDI 2006

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,140|Likes:
Published by Incoherency
by WNDI 2006.
by WNDI 2006.

More info:

Published by: Incoherency on Mar 18, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, DOC, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





WNDI 2k6 Statism K Neg AddendumSTATISM K – NEG ADDENDUM1. Index2. The state controls its citizens thru violence3. Anarchy solves nuclear war 4. Alternative solves1
WNDI 2k6 Statism K Neg AddendumThe State monopolizes legitimate violence, and uses that as a mechanism to control the population
.mahost.org, Anarchist website, date accessed: 7/26/
, “On the State.”Due to the way they are structured, all states are a mechanism by which a minority imposes its will on amajority. They are not neutral bodies that can be used by any group for whatever purpose they desire. So-called "democratic" states are a mechanism by which a minority imposes its will on the majority; they justattempt to fool the majority into thinking that they are in charge when they aren't. Representativedemocracy is a form of minority rule that pretends not to be. States are not neutral tools that anyone canuse for any purpose; they are autonomous organizations that develop their own dynamics & interests.States generally maintain a monopoly (or near monopoly) on the legitimate use of violence. Legitimateviolence is violence that is viewed by the majority of the population as being acceptable. For the most part,the majority of the population usually sees the state as the only legitimate source of violence, withoccasional exceptions, and all other sources as illegitimate. Police use force all the time but ordinarycitizens are barred from using force except for a few cases specifically exempted by law. A society with astate is a society with specialized social roles for the use and authorization of violence (police, soldiers, politicians, generals, judges, etc.). The state attempts to monopolize violence so that it is the only source of violence, all others are suppressed. The state attempts to create a situation where, in the view of themajority, the state can use violence while others cannot. The state means some people can whack otherswith impunity.This monopoly of force can be delegated. For example, a state can make an exception for self-defense,legalize private security companies, or authorize the military forces of an allied state to operate on itsterritory. However, in all of these cases the state is the final authority for what violence may or may not beused, only violence it authorizes may be used. In practice the state rarely achieves a total monopoly, thereis usually at least a fringe that does not regard state violence as legitimate. In some cases the state'smonopoly of force may face major challenges from armed groups within society or even lose thatmonopoly all together (due to massive revolts, etc.). However, all states at least purport to hold amonopoly of force (even if this is a myth) and, to the extent possible, attempt to suppress all groups thatchallenge this monopoly, even if they are unsuccessful at it.The state's monopoly (or near-monopoly) on legitimate violence and its centralized, hierarchicalcharacteristics tend to reinforce each other. The state attempts to monopolize all violence, and to portray itsown violence (and violence it has authorized) as the sole legitimate form of violence, so as to strengthen its power and insure those on the top of the hierarchy maintain control over the rest of the population.Organizations that monopolize the legitimate use of violence tend towards hierarchy and centralization,easily coming to dominate the rest of the population. If some people can whack others with impunity thenthat ability means they can easily gain power over others. As a result of this, they can use force againstanyone who disobeys them with little likelihood of retaliation or resistance. This is a recipe for hierarchyand centralization of power into a small elite.2
WNDI 2k6 Statism K Neg AddendumAnarchy is the only way to truly pre-empt nuclear war Kevin
, Staff Writer, Commondreams.org, “Invitation to Global Anarchy,” June,
,http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0624-06.htmPresident Bush and his administration have recently outlined a policy dubbed "strike first" —launching pre-emptive attacks on countries or terrorist organizations suspected of developing weapons of massdestruction (WMD).Let’s get this straight: Bush, despite the recent treaty signed with Russia, plans to keep 10,000 nuclear warheads indefinitely. Moreover, he plans to develop new types of nuclear weapons, target non-nuclear states, and, most likely, resume full-scale nuclear testing.Yet under "strike first," if he says another country is attempting to obtain WMD, Bush deigns onto himself the right to launch a pre-emptive attack. Even if he can’t prove it and even if an attack against our countryis not imminent, he claims, under this policy, the right to attack any country.Despite any credible evidence connecting Iraq to the 9/11 attacks and the serious concerns of senior military officials, the administration plans to debut this policy as soon as they can—with an invasion of Iraqto overthrow Saddam Hussein.David Sanger wrote in a New York Times article on June 17, "The administration, not surprisingly, isarguing for the widest possible latitude in implementing this policy, making the case that only it can definewhat poses a major and imminent threat to national security." The article continued, "... Mr. Bush's new policy could amount to ultimate unilateralism, because it reserves the right to determine what constitutes athreat to American security and to act even if that threat is not judged imminent."Have our so-called leaders thought about the implications of this? Or are they so full of hubris, so drunk on power that they think they can do anything and that the rest of the world will swallow it whole, just as thesupine media and a cowed Congress have in this country?Under this same doctrine, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea would be justified in attacking the UnitedStates to "pre-empt" our development of new types of nuclear weapons which target them (as Bush outlinedin his Nuclear Posture Review). However, if other countries were to do this, we would rightfully call itwhat it is—an act of aggression.This "strike first" policy, along with Bush’s provocative, aggressive new nuclear weapons doctrine, willsurely lead to two things—nuclear proliferation and more terrorism—making America and the world far less, rather than more secure. Bush’s policy practically invites attacks on Washington, New York, or other American cities.3

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
_PhalanX_ liked this
spamtshieh liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview
