Is the State really the problem ?
After the terrorist attack on Paris in November 13th the Primer Minister Manuel Valls declared that “security is the first of the liberties” ; as it first appears with this quote, the main objective of the State is to prevent violence against its citizens. But in order to do that, the State has to commit violent acts which could include killing people ; indeed the state is supposed to have the monopoly of legitimate violence. But in reality State’s violence is not always better than criminal violence, in some cases both violence can even be mixed.
Some states are accused of being “Mafia State” or “Predatory State”, which means that states can act in the same way as gang or criminal organization. Moreover state’s violence is maybe worse than criminal violence, as it is implied by reporter Coates in his article “The Clock didn’t start with the riots”. He denounces the violence induced by State’s actions or inaction like slavery, discriminations (legal or illegal), poverty, etc. Violence and State seem closely related, and it appears than one of the main arguments of the legitimacy of violence is its acceptance by the people. 180 words.
If the state is weak, the “legitimacy” belongs to the group or organization whose possess the monopoly of violence. As it is detailed in Volkov Vadim text, in the 1900’s in Russia, the weakness of the State led to the reign of gangs, because they were the only one provided peace and economic prosperity. For example, the famous Pablo Escobar is still a popular figure in some poor districts of Medellin despite of all his crimes, because he has given them what the same never offered, jobs, houses, etc.
Violence is a part of the State, when it loses its monopole over violence, the state is replaced by local authorities, legal or illegal. Maybe that the main difference between State’s violence and criminal’s violence is the possibility of controlling or in criticizing the use of violence by the citizens.
