Dutch General speaks about why he took up the gun

I don't agree with everything that this man says but for the most part I agree with his concept. I just cannot agree with the part he states that the state is the sole legitimizing force for the use of violence because it has the will of the people behind it. That likely works better in the Netherlands than it would in the United States primarily because we have such a Melting Pot here we're not exactly monochromatic and we have very different ways of looking at the world so it's difficult in our position to give up the use of violence as a last resort individually not just collectively through the state.

a reply to: machineintelligence

I guess I can agree with the state part in theory. The state is supposed to represent the people, the whole.

Maybe if the citizens in the US took their job a little more seriously, we could wrestle it back our way a little.

a reply to: machineintelligence

The state must be the sole legitimising user of force in society, it must be coupled with justice
Because once civil justice fails then it becomes a free for all and individual revenge becomes the norm, like the Hatfield and McCoy war a century ago.
It’s not uncommon that families will argue, far better it end up in a courtroom than in violence

The US doesn’t allow individual justice, the court system though corrupt and inefficient does, for the most part, provide justice

Don’t think that individual justice is allowed and acceptable in US society, any developed society. That is what separates Western society from those in third world countries

Oops dp

a reply to: Raggedyman

The second amendment is about the people being the state and we give ourselves the responsibility to defend justice and keep the peace. It is also there to ensure that if the control of the reigns of power go to some faction working against the people we can restore the republic.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Raggedyman

The second amendment is about the people being the state and we give ourselves the responsibility to defend justice and keep the peace. It is also there to ensure that if the control of the reigns of power go to some faction working against the people we can restore the republic.

And I am not arguing any of that
While the system is working fine, (it seems to be) justice is seemed to be done then there is no need for gun violence.

My point was, individuals in a functioning civil society should not resort to individual violence...
If the justice system is functioning adequately
You defend justice by employing just and honest people to carry out a service of protection, not individually serving it out, within reason obviously there are times when individuals are duty bound to intervene. Common sense

If society becomes disfunctional then guns, as discussed above in the ted talk, are valuable tools

Take gang violence, gangs killing each other because they can’t seek lawful justice.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Gang violence accounts for a disproportionately large percentage of overall gun deaths in the US. That statistic trend I think is not questioned. I mention in the OP I do not agree with his description of the state as exclusive arbitrary of justice because it has the inherent incursion of employees who can be purchased, who are lazy or self driven and abuse the power given to them by the people. This book sites lots of examples.

www.amazon.com...

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Raggedyman

Gang violence accounts for a disproportionately large percentage of overall gun deaths in the US. That statistic trend I think is not questioned. I mention in the OP I do not agree with his description of the state as exclusive arbitrary of justice because it has the inherent incursion of employees who can be purchased, who are lazy or self driven and abuse the power given to them by the people. This book sites lots of examples.

www.amazon.com...

Yes there are issues, as I stated
“You defend justice by employing just and honest people to carry out a service of protection, not individually serving it out, within reason obviously there are times when individuals are duty bound to intervene.”

If this fails then yes, society becomes disfunctional, certain measures are required, qualified by me stating “ if the system fails”

In a functioning society, individual justice should be regarded as an extreme measure

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Raggedyman

Gang violence accounts for a disproportionately large percentage of overall gun deaths in the US. That statistic trend I think is not questioned. I mention in the OP I do not agree with his description of the state as exclusive arbitrary of justice because it has the inherent incursion of employees who can be purchased, who are lazy or self driven and abuse the power given to them by the people. This book sites lots of examples.

www.amazon.com...

Yes there are issues, as I stated
“You defend justice by employing just and honest people to carry out a service of protection, not individually serving it out, within reason obviously there are times when individuals are duty bound to intervene.”

If this fails then yes, society becomes disfunctional, certain measures are required, qualified by me stating “ if the system fails”

In a functioning society, individual justice should be regarded as an extreme measure

originally posted by: machineintelligence
...That likely works better in the Netherlands than it would in the United States primarily because we have such a Melting Pot here we're not exactly monochromatic ...

Frisian/Dutch demographic in the Netherlands = 76%
(excludes German, Polish, ME immigrants)

Non-minority demographic in the USA = 73%
(includes all European, ME immigrants as "white")

So yeah. The US is FAR more of a melting pot than the Netherlands. Although the Low Countries are way more diverse than the rest of the EU...