GonzoTimes | Coercive retaliation is the nature of the state. It is used to force human beings into submission. The state is not the only institution that uses this tactic. The tactic of coercive retaliation should be opposed on all levels from a level of abuse between two individuals to the level of a state against the individual.
Coercive retaliation is practice of exercising some sort of retribution against an individual if they do not submit to the will of another as a mean to force human beings to do as one wills. This is seen in cases of domestic violence and the state. There is little difference outside of the fact the state writes what it will do on paper and justifies these violent actions by calling them ‘legal’.
Self justification is often difficult for an individual who practices such abuses and crimes on another individual. The state has built an empire on this self-justification. It is to the point that the majority does not question the states utilitarian self-justification. This self-justification has been so infused in culture that much of the language used by the majority is a language built upon the assumption that the self-justification is not to be questioned.
The state blames the victim with the common language and in turn the media recites such language and accusations without question. Robert Higgs recently published a piece at the Independent Institute that highlights some of this language titled If the Government does X, it is Called Y.
Despite the self justification and distortion of language there are instances where issues do come up that must be addressed. The states answer is often this coercive retaliation, a violent retribution. The problem with this being the answer is that it does not actually address the problem. The idea behind this is the idea that we accept such actions will happen and then after one does something we attack them. The true answers lie in truly confronting the issues and changing what is. Murder and rape are two great examples. They need to be addressed.
The state chooses to allow murder from itself. It views it as an answer. It chooses to accept murder from others and then only deals with the issue with retaliation. What should be addressed from society are the issues that would lead up to the murder or rape. We should work on prevention and protection as a society. We should work on healing and fixing, research to better understand the nature of aggression and how to avoid the initiation of force on another. Mental health professionals should be at the forefront of this battle not another person willing to initiate force. This only enters into the circle of violence that constantly perpetuates itself.
When we take the science and research of things like peace and aggression serious we will make changes. The amount of money spent on detention, kidnapping and caging humans, waging endless wars and weapons can be put to better use studying the science of peace and aggression. We will one day find that as we learn in these under developed areas of science we will come to a realization that anarchism is more relevant for society than most have ever known. These areas of science will justify anarchism.
The mindset behind coercive retaliation is a rather simple one. The answer to the violence of an individual is the more threatening violence of the collective. This is essentially saying our violence is greater than your violence so your fear of our violence should deter your violence. This does not address the root of the problems in society. It is a way to accept the violence and add to it. This might not be as terrible if the violence was directed at the violent, but this is not the case. The violence is most often directed at individuals who do not follow abstract laws invented by the state as a tool to maintain submission of the citizen.
This shows that really the only solution the state has is to threaten people into submission. The idea is that human beings will only refrain from violence because of the more concentrated violence. Is violence really the only deterrent we can create in society? Shouldn’t we focus on protection, prevention followed by restitution and reparations before expanding the violence and becoming what it is we claim to oppose.