Perry H. sent in this cartoon:
The cartoon, of course, reminds us of the power of words. Calling something “terrorism” is a way to make it seem illegitimate. And, often, what makes violence illegitimate is not something inherent in the violence itself, but your perspective on it.
The cartoon also reminds us of Max Weber’s insight that the nation-state can be defined by its monopoly on violence. For most of us, most of the time, violence exercised by the state is assumed to be legitimate (unless shown otherwise). For example, police walk around with guns and can shoot you legally. Soldiers kill as part of their jobs. This is simply “keeping the peace” or “following orders.”
But violence exercised by individuals and other entities is (unless shown otherwise) illegitimate. In fact, when individuals or other entities do violence, it is often called “criminality” or “terrorism.”
It is interesting to try to think about this monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. It likely seems normal to you, but if you think about it hard, does it seem right? What are the alternatives? And, short of a perfect world with no violence, how do we even begin to evaluate different scenarios?
