Ziska writes:
I basically don’t think terrorism is a powerful analytic concept, partly because it privileges state violence. Most “sub-states” think of themselves as “pre-states”.
Hmm. This raises an interesting question. While there is more to it than just this, I intend to privilege state violence…that’s part of how I differentiate taxes and extortion, for example. If you don’t, what violence do you exclude from legitimacy?
Date: 08/30/2002 00:00:00 AM
The guerrilla war/ terrorism distinction escapes me. The difference, as far as I know, is that you can have terrorism without guerrilla warfare (mostly because you can’t manage guerrila war) but that you seldom have guerrilla warfare without terrorism. I’m not at all convinced that non-violence would work in Israel/Palestine, or that it worked in India, or that it worked anywhere. There was also a violent resistance in India, and England had many practical reasons to exit. One form of “moral parity” that I would argue is that if a tactic being used by some present insurgent group was also used by some successful insurgent group in the past, one that has been admitted to the family of nations such as Ireland, Israel, and Algeria, then we must find some additional reason for denouncing the present-day group. Not just because of the tactic.
Date: 08/29/2002 00:00:00 AM
I have less of an opinion on gun control than almost anyone. As far as privileging state violence: most of the terrorist groups we talk about are trying to establish independent states. N. Ireland, Palestine, the Kurds, the Basques, the Chechnyans, the Tamils….. They are trying to get rid of one state and replace it with another. (OR: trying to take over an existing state, as in El Salvador. OR maybe in a few cases merely to get an autonomous region). Terrorism is a method which can be used by either side. Generally it is a brutal, last-ditch method used at an elusive enemy (either guerrillas or and entrenched state).In many cases the alternatives for these (insurgent) groups are simply to give up, or to use terrorism. And sometimes that may be true of established states too.So the question is not, “What strange reasons cause these people to act so irrationally” but “Why do they want a state so badly, and why do they think they can get one?”Proto-nations sometimes do disappear: Biafra and the Confederate States of America come to mind. People just quit trying.As far as that goes, actual nations disappear too: Catalonia, Burgundy, the various small Italian and German states that disappeared in the XIC C.
Date: 08/28/2002 00:00:00 AM
Rob appropriately dings me…A.L.
Date: 08/29/2002 00:00:00 AM
“In many cases the alternatives for these (insurgent) groups are simply to give up, or to use terrorism.”I must strenuously disagree. The IRA would get a lot further with non-violent means. If it worked for Ghandi, it will work for them. Ditto for the Palistinian cause. Besides, guerilla warfare is NOT the same as terrorism, because guerillas attack military targets, not discos.I’m a great believer in the right to revolution. But George Washington didn’t murder women in London to achieve an independant U.S., so Arafat’s claim to being the Palistinian Washington is a grave insult to George.
Date: 08/28/2002 00:00:00 AM
“the only legitimate violence is in self-defense” is a principle I can support for an individual, but not for a state.I own a piece of land that the city wants to take for eminent domain, say for a hospital. The yget it appraised, and try and force me to sell. I refuse, so they take it. I resist, and so folks with guns come and either take me away or kill me.That is a reasonable use of state force, as I see it, and if it is self-defense, you’ve broadened the meaning so far that it’s now meaningless.There’s a common libertarian construction that the state should have either a) no rights, or b) only the rights accorded any individual. I don’t begin to buy it, and I don’t think you can sell it…but you’re welcome to try!A.L.
Date: 08/28/2002 00:00:00 AM
I intend to privilege state violence…that’s part of how I differentiate taxes and extortion, for example. If you don’t, what violence do you exclude from legitimacy?Too easy. The only legitimate violence, regardless of whether it is sourced from a “state” (whatever that is), a sub-state, a pre-state, or an individual, is violence in self-defense. Aggressive violence is never legitimate regardless of the source.How do you distinguish taxes from extortion? You don’t, because you can’t. This is a reason to eliminate or at least minimize taxes, not a reason to erect elaborate theoretical edifices justifying violence by a “state” in order to avoid calling into question the nasty habits of the people who tend to run states.Taxes I classify as a necessary evil that are tolerable only so long as they buy me safety from barbarism.But that is another rant . . .
Date: 08/27/2002 00:00:00 AM
I don’t mean to come off as twisting your (excellent) terrorism discussion to other ends. I feel kinda bad even posting this. But because it’s nearly the only thing we disagree about, I need to point out that a state monopoly on legitimate violence is one of the arguments I’ve used in favour of gun control.With humility,AE
Date: 08/28/2002 00:00:00 AM
AE, I can’t resist comment–I find it very, very hard to believe that you take your own argument seriously. Would you refuse to resist if someone were trying to kill you? Do you actually urge rape victims to lie back and think of England? If not, you either lack the courage of your convictions or you haven’t thought it through.Oh, and what if the state is a criminal enterprise? Are we to regard Robert Mugabe’s thuggish conduct as legitmate because he is a head of state? Armed Liberal hasn’t made his position clear, but I personally place very stringent limits on legitimate state violence–it must come from consensual government, it must respect fundamental human rights, etc. Just being a government agent isn’t a carte blance.Self-defense against criminal agression–state-sponsored or otherwise–is the first law of nature. Any attempt to prohibit or limit it is a disgusting assault the most basic of all human rights.I rate people who oppose self-defense lower than those who favor state-enforce mandatory religion or censorship of political views enforced by prison time. After all, Nelson Mandela survived to witness the triumph of his ideas, but a guy who gets murdered by a criminal because someone like you used state violence to deprive him of his means of self-defense is DEAD.That’s unconscionable. Is that really what you believe?