THE STATE MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF FORCE
The armed conflict in Mukachevo between the Ukrainian nationalists and the alliance of police and local mafia clan has shown us another example of how the government can manipulate public opinion under the domination of the political discourse. In particular, we talk about the double accusation wich was imposed to the "Right Sector" by pro-governmental opinion makers on inviolability of the state monopoly on the use of force in general and illegal possession and use of weapons in particular.
First of all we should look closely at the issue of the state monopoly on the use of force, because this is a basic question, which shows us the false nature of the political discourse, which is imposing into Ukrainian and whole European society.
Overall, the issue of state monopoly on the use of force is a rather complicated topic, which affects philosophical, political and law spheres of public life. The governmental propagandists are talking about this "monopoly" as of something fundamental, absolute and taken for granted in the frameworks of the Mukachevo incident. But this is an erroneous position - the state monopoly on the use of force is the product of a particular ideological matrix, and often its level determined by the circumstances of the particular political situation and its principles.
Of course, political authority must have priority for using of force in order to maintain order and keep the state from chaos in accordance with historical experience. But this priority became too pronounced and gained the features of totalitarian monopoly now, in period of modern history. Within the paradigm of Modernity the process of state forming became too alienated from the society which prevails over social bonds, instead of growing from them. This mechanism takes over more and more functions, trying to take control over more and more areas of life - individual, family, community. Rigid monopoly on the use of force is one of the reflections of this process. And, judging by the dynamics of the present, this monopoly can be even more total in the future. A striking example is the liberal-socialist countries of Scandinavia. The educational process in schools in these countries is organised in such way to force a child to believe that the use of force (eg for self-defense or to protect its other legitimate interests) is unacceptable under any circumstances. In the frameworks of global policy of strengthening the state monopoly on force we should also pay attention to the laws, directed to prohibit parents resort to any use of force against children with educational purpose (we talk about adequate methods only and condemn violence against children).
The state monopoly on the use of forceis significantly amplified by two factors. First is the fact that the current state mechanism still have the elements of legacy of Moscow`s Bolshevik-occupational regime. Secondly, extremely corrupt nature of enforcement agencies and courts. As for the second point, high level of corruption among the "law guards" often prevents the use of force, even when it permitted by law, in particular in the case of self-defense. Let me give you an example citing a part from the program text of the "Tryzub" nationalist organisation: "...sometimes this becomes an absurd where, for example, a woman who is under the threaten of rape, before defending himself has thought about what will be better - resist and be afraid to sit in prison for wounding or killing the attacker or be raped and hope that the attacker will not escape the punishment."
All these talks about the inviolability of the above-mentioned monopoly and demagoguery on inadmissibility of the armed struggle against the mafia clan in Transcarpathia are directed not only to discreditation of the "Right Sector" but also to veiled propaganda of totalitarian order, which provides an unnatural level of state intervention into various spheres of people life. Absolutized state monopoly on the use of force is evil, even in the case of effective work of a law enforcement, because it turns the citizen into a slave, takes away his right to defend himself and build own life.
Of course, a state should have priority in this sphere, but it should not be absolute. The principle of subsidiarity is an example of quite reasonable approach to solving the issue of using force within the society. According to this principle the subjects of the highest order (in our case - the public authorities) must not intervene in matters that can be addressed by the subjects lower order. Implementation of this principle would mean that the state allows the use of force in case, when the citizen will be able to solve the existing problem objectively within the limits dictated by the principles of fairness. The state should be in the role of arbitrator.
It's not enough to overcome the corruption and ensure the right for self-defence for every citizen for overcoming of pathological approach to the state monopoly on the use of force. The state should delegate broader spectrum of rights for its citizens. For example - a man must have the full right to protect own dignity with physical methods in the case of unfair verbal insults towards him. It is clear that such insult don't give him a grounds for causing serious physical injury to abuser, but the methods of physical influence should be serious enough to teach the ignorant one and to compensate moral damages (especially if this insult was directed on a family - mother, sister, bride, wife, daughter). The same applies to the protection of property rights, the owner is entitled not only to delay but to teach a lesson for a thief. Similarly, a citizen, who characterized by high personal qualities, has the right to immediately respond to the actions which offend national dignity, religious holy things and basic moral principles. The state should act as an arbiter in this case.
This is right, conservative approach, aimed at preventing the transformation of people into obedient slaves of modern Leviathan. Let us not forget that totalitarianism - is not always reflect itself in concentration camps and mass repressions. It can take the soft and transparent form of excessive but sweet caring. The state should be a haven of free people, who can independently manage their own lifes with dignity, not a concentration camp or incubator!
As for the situation around the "Right Sector", you should be aware, that we are talking about a situation where the state itself is illegitimate mechanism. Everyone who says that the "Right Sector" soldiers have challenged the legitimate authorities simply do not understand or refuse to understand what is the difference between the concepts of legitimacy and legality. Yes, current Ukrainian government is legal, but a number of factors, such as alienation from the state interests, corruption, cooperation with oligarchs or ignoring a number of laws make it illegitimate a priori. Under such circumstances number of missionaries, who make a challenge to illegitimate system, are going to be legitimate and they have the right for using the force.
It is naive to believe that perfect judicial system will be created once day, but generally the concepts of legitimacy and legality should coincide - the law should serve for justice, not to protect the interests of parasites!
Of course, political authority must have priority for using of force in order to maintain order and keep the state from chaos in accordance with historical experience. But this priority became too pronounced and gained the features of totalitarian monopoly now, in period of modern history. Within the paradigm of Modernity the process of state forming became too alienated from the society which prevails over social bonds, instead of growing from them. This mechanism takes over more and more functions, trying to take control over more and more areas of life - individual, family, community. Rigid monopoly on the use of force is one of the reflections of this process. And, judging by the dynamics of the present, this monopoly can be even more total in the future. A striking example is the liberal-socialist countries of Scandinavia. The educational process in schools in these countries is organised in such way to force a child to believe that the use of force (eg for self-defense or to protect its other legitimate interests) is unacceptable under any circumstances. In the frameworks of global policy of strengthening the state monopoly on force we should also pay attention to the laws, directed to prohibit parents resort to any use of force against children with educational purpose (we talk about adequate methods only and condemn violence against children).
The state monopoly on the use of forceis significantly amplified by two factors. First is the fact that the current state mechanism still have the elements of legacy of Moscow`s Bolshevik-occupational regime. Secondly, extremely corrupt nature of enforcement agencies and courts. As for the second point, high level of corruption among the "law guards" often prevents the use of force, even when it permitted by law, in particular in the case of self-defense. Let me give you an example citing a part from the program text of the "Tryzub" nationalist organisation: "...sometimes this becomes an absurd where, for example, a woman who is under the threaten of rape, before defending himself has thought about what will be better - resist and be afraid to sit in prison for wounding or killing the attacker or be raped and hope that the attacker will not escape the punishment."All these talks about the inviolability of the above-mentioned monopoly and demagoguery on inadmissibility of the armed struggle against the mafia clan in Transcarpathia are directed not only to discreditation of the "Right Sector" but also to veiled propaganda of totalitarian order, which provides an unnatural level of state intervention into various spheres of people life. Absolutized state monopoly on the use of force is evil, even in the case of effective work of a law enforcement, because it turns the citizen into a slave, takes away his right to defend himself and build own life.
Of course, a state should have priority in this sphere, but it should not be absolute. The principle of subsidiarity is an example of quite reasonable approach to solving the issue of using force within the society. According to this principle the subjects of the highest order (in our case - the public authorities) must not intervene in matters that can be addressed by the subjects lower order. Implementation of this principle would mean that the state allows the use of force in case, when the citizen will be able to solve the existing problem objectively within the limits dictated by the principles of fairness. The state should be in the role of arbitrator.
It's not enough to overcome the corruption and ensure the right for self-defence for every citizen for overcoming of pathological approach to the state monopoly on the use of force. The state should delegate broader spectrum of rights for its citizens. For example - a man must have the full right to protect own dignity with physical methods in the case of unfair verbal insults towards him. It is clear that such insult don't give him a grounds for causing serious physical injury to abuser, but the methods of physical influence should be serious enough to teach the ignorant one and to compensate moral damages (especially if this insult was directed on a family - mother, sister, bride, wife, daughter). The same applies to the protection of property rights, the owner is entitled not only to delay but to teach a lesson for a thief. Similarly, a citizen, who characterized by high personal qualities, has the right to immediately respond to the actions which offend national dignity, religious holy things and basic moral principles. The state should act as an arbiter in this case.
This is right, conservative approach, aimed at preventing the transformation of people into obedient slaves of modern Leviathan. Let us not forget that totalitarianism - is not always reflect itself in concentration camps and mass repressions. It can take the soft and transparent form of excessive but sweet caring. The state should be a haven of free people, who can independently manage their own lifes with dignity, not a concentration camp or incubator!
As for the situation around the "Right Sector", you should be aware, that we are talking about a situation where the state itself is illegitimate mechanism. Everyone who says that the "Right Sector" soldiers have challenged the legitimate authorities simply do not understand or refuse to understand what is the difference between the concepts of legitimacy and legality. Yes, current Ukrainian government is legal, but a number of factors, such as alienation from the state interests, corruption, cooperation with oligarchs or ignoring a number of laws make it illegitimate a priori. Under such circumstances number of missionaries, who make a challenge to illegitimate system, are going to be legitimate and they have the right for using the force.
It is naive to believe that perfect judicial system will be created once day, but generally the concepts of legitimacy and legality should coincide - the law should serve for justice, not to protect the interests of parasites!
Original text by Igor Zagrebelny
Коментарі
Дописати коментар