The Monopoly on Violence

Way back in the Pleistocene, when I was getting my masters degree in International Relations, I was introduced to the German sociologist Max Weber*, who defined a state as "a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

By that definition, the United States is no longer a "state."

In Der Furor's America, where his angry base is spun up to a wild frenzy over overblown tales of violent anarchy and helpless, outmatched police, armed vigilantes have taken to the streets to "protect property" ... and now, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a (white) 17-year old self-styled law enforcer has murdered two people and injured others in the name of "keeping the peace." And as if that weren't bad enough, the murderer was filmed marching down the street, openly carrying a loaded semiautomatic rifle and waving to police who ignored him as they drove past on their way to dealing with rioters and looters (stereotypically expected to be black or brown).

Is this what we have become?

When a population, much of it armed to the teeth and spoiling for a fight against the godless, socialist libs, takes its cues from a president who sides with racists and white supremacists and is openly contemptuous of the law unless it serves his purposes, it's a recipe for anarchy. How long do you suppose it will take for black and brown Americans to start arming themselves in self-defense, turning out to "protect property" and the lives of their fellows? We will have replaced the United States of America - once the "shining light on the hill" admired and respected around the world - with an angry mobocracy no better than the most anarchic, warlord-ruled third-world hellhole.

By the way, since many police departments, particularly in deep red states, seem to be willing to allow private militias to "assist" with law enforcement, it's possible that they are unaware that every state in the union prohibits this. You can read a detailed summary of state laws governing private militias here. Such laws, though on the books, are routinely ignored by those who - inspired by the Scofflaw-in-Chief - believe laws don't apply to them.

I would like to think that we will exercise our national gift for self-correction come November, but I fear that train has sailed. Der Furor has done such a spectacular job of pitting Americans against one another, stoking fear and rage against every available scapegoat to distract from his own failures of leadership**, that - for the first time - I actually fear for the future of the nation.

Der Furor flagrantly ignores the law already, knowing that he can do so with impunity because his allies and enablers will let him get away with the most outrageous, illegal, and unconstitutional behavior. Imagine what he will be like if he's reelected, able to claim that "the people" have given him a mandate that justifies whatever he does.

Forget the police. It will be the time of the unleashed vigilante, of the surrender of your government's monopoly on violence as (in theory) governed by the law. And we'll have done it to ourselves.

Have a good day. Be sure you are registered to vote, and be sure to do it. You know that Der Furor's base will.

Sorry for the downer, but I'm angry and worried. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Not really, as he's been dead since 1920, but you know what I mean.

** It speaks volumes that the governor of Wisconsin has asked Der Furor - the sitting president of the United States - not to come to his state as planned, saying, "I am concerned your presence will only hinder our healing. I am concerned your presence will only delay our work to overcome division and move forward together. It is our job as elected officials to lead by example and to be a calming presence for the people we know are hurting, mourning, and trying to cope with trauma. Now is not the time for divisiveness. Now is not the time for elected officials to ignore armed militants and out-of-state instigators who want to contribute to our anguish."

The Knockout Game

You may have read of the recent spate of random attacks in which young people approach a victim and strike the person as hard as possible, with the aim of rendering the victim unconscious with one blow. This bizarre and hateful activity is known as "The Knockout Game," and it makes you wonder what we've come to. Here's an excerpt from a longer article by CNN's Morgan Winsor ...

"Youth violence expert Chuck Williams blamed the media and parents for what he called extreme aggression by America's youths. Negative attention, he said, is often rewarded.

"'That's America. America loves violence, and so do our kids,' he said. 'We market violence to our children and we wonder why they're violent. It's because we are.'

"Williams, a professor of psychology and education at Drexel University in Philadelphia, said some young people are desperate for attention. He called it the 'Miley Cyrus effect,' where teens will do anything to get noticed, no matter how unconscionable.

"'These kids know the consequences,' he said. 'They want to get arrested. They want to get caught, because they want that notoriety. They know they won't go away forever because they're kids. It's a win-win all around for them.'"

What sort of example are parents setting, and what are we teaching our children when their idea of a game is brutally assaulting a random stranger? Are our children indeed so desperate for attention that they find it necessary to injure others in order to "be noticed?"

I think there are a lot of negative things coming together to create this unfortunate trend*.

One is the glorification of violence in television and the movies, much of it loud and cartoonish and not reflective of the real blood and terror that's involved with all the gunfire and explosions and fights that are choreographed in blazing color and thundering sound on the screen.

Another is the abdication of personal responsibility for one's actions, in which bad things are justified by all sorts of excuses that put the blame everywhere but on the perpetrator.

The increasing anonymity of modern life also plays a role. Our children spend more time in impersonal contacts on social media than actually dealing with real people, and this can make it difficult to relate to live, breathing persons. This is related to the idea I explored a few posts back about the lost art of conversation ... if you only communicate via SMS using OMGs and LOLs, it can be tough to actually talk to someone.

Many of us have an unfortunate idea that unlimited freedom is the ultimate purpose of America. Don't tread on me is one mantra ... leave me alone, it's a free country, and get the government off my back** are others. We focus completely on the rights of the individual, and ignore the responsibilities that go along with them.

If that's what you believe, you deserve what you get ... which might well be a starring role in some bored teenager's YouTube video for The Knockout Game.

Have a good day. Remember the Golden Rule. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I'm not a psychologist, just an observer.

** Unless I need disaster help, or a tax break for my business.

Bad Times a-Comin'?

It's no secret that we're living in an America that is very different from the one in which many of us grew up. Incivility and irrational anger have skyrocketed, the level of slime and nastiness in politics is at near-historic levels, and there's a general my-way-or-the-highway attitude that has taken hold among political parties, religions, and just about everybody but the local chess club*. Society has gotten more insensitive, more crass, and more violent, and the voices of reason and civility are being drowned out by the drumbeat of argument and unreason for its own sake.

So, Dear Readers, if we follow this miserable condition to its ultimate conclusion, where do we end up?

A very sobering possibility is suggested in this fascinating article by Natalie Wolchover from the online science news magazine LiveScience: Will the US Really Experience a Violent Upheaval in 2020?

It's not an outlandish or trivial question.

Dr Peter Turchin, an ecologist, evolutionary biologist and mathematician at the University of Connecticut, uses the new science of cliodynamics to extrapolate mathematical modeling data from the historical record. Using his methods, the article points out his conclusion that "the (historical) data indicates that a cycle of violence repeats itself every 50 years in America, like a wave that peaks in every other generation. This short-term cycle is superimposed over another, longer-term oscillation that repeats every 200 to 300 years. The slower waves in violence can either augment or suppress the 50-year peaks, depending on how the two cycles overlap." The data can be seen on this chart, which accompanies the article:

On this one, from Professor Turchin's cliodynamics website, which presents the data with a bit more color and explanation:

And on this larger chart, from LifesLittleMysteries.com, which adds still more detail (click it to see the entire thing):

Extrapolating from the historical data, we could see a spike in the level of violence in this country somewhere around 2020 ... just eight years from now.

This is not an unreasonable fear. The level of political polarization and irrational anger, the growing disparity among economic classes, the ready availability of high-powered weapons, and a culture centered on the rights of the individual rather than the benefit of the larger society all suggest that the prediction could be correct.

Of course, cliodynamics has its detractors. Massimo Pigliucci, a social scientist who studies pseudoscience and skeptical thinking, comments about Turchin's theory that,

"The database is too short: the entire study covers the period 1780-2010, a mere 230 years. You can fit at most four 50-year peaks and two [long-term] ones. I just don't see how one could reasonably exclude that the observed pattern is random."

Well, random or not, it provides food for serious thought. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the present level of heavily-armed irrationality in this country could lead to a spasm of violence in the coming years. Unfortunately, the people who most need to understand the role of their behavior in leading to this unhappy future are those least likely to pay any attention to the message.

What do you think? Is Dr Turchin being an alarmist, or are you running down to the local gun shop to stock up your arsenal for the coming explosion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* And even there, the queens are demanding the right to kiss each other at Chick-fil-A restaurants.