WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Neg Addendum

STATISM K – NEG ADDENDUM

1. Index

2. The state controls its citizens thru violence

3. Anarchy solves nuclear war

4. Alternative solves

1

WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Neg Addendum

The State monopolizes legitimate violence, and uses that as a mechanism to control the population  Question-Everything.mahost.org, Anarchist website, date accessed: 7/26/06, “On the State.”

Due to the way they are structured, all states are a mechanism by which a minority imposes its will on a majority.  They are not neutral bodies that can be used by any group for whatever purpose they desire.  So-called "democratic" states are a mechanism by which a minority imposes its will on the majority; they just attempt to fool the majority into thinking that they are in charge when they aren't.  Representative democracy is a form of minority rule that pretends not to be.  States are not neutral tools that anyone can use for any purpose; they are autonomous organizations that develop their own dynamics & interests.  States generally maintain a monopoly (or near monopoly) on the legitimate use of violence.  Legitimate violence is violence that is viewed by the majority of the population as being acceptable.  For the most part, the majority of the population usually sees the state as the only legitimate source of violence, with occasional exceptions, and all other sources as illegitimate.  Police use force all the time but ordinary citizens are barred from using force except for a few cases specifically exempted by law.  A society with a state is a society with specialized social roles for the use and authorization of violence (police, soldiers, politicians, generals, judges, etc.).  The state attempts to monopolize violence so that it is the only source of violence, all others are suppressed.  The state attempts to create a situation where, in the view of the majority, the state can use violence while others cannot.  The state means some people can whack others with impunity.  This monopoly of force can be delegated.  For example, a state can make an exception for self-defense, legalize private security companies, or authorize the military forces of an allied state to operate on its territory.  However, in all of these cases the state is the final authority for what violence may or may not be used, only violence it authorizes may be used.  In practice the state rarely achieves a total monopoly, there is usually at least a fringe that does not regard state violence as legitimate.  In some cases the state's monopoly of force may face major challenges from armed groups within society or even lose that monopoly all together (due to massive revolts, etc.).  However, all states at least purport to hold a monopoly of force (even if this is a myth) and, to the extent possible, attempt to suppress all groups that challenge this monopoly, even if they are unsuccessful at it.  The state's monopoly (or near-monopoly) on legitimate violence and its centralized, hierarchical characteristics tend to reinforce each other.  The state attempts to monopolize all violence, and to portray its own violence (and violence it has authorized) as the sole legitimate form of violence, so as to strengthen its power and insure those on the top of the hierarchy maintain control over the rest of the population.   Organizations that monopolize the legitimate use of violence tend towards hierarchy and centralization, easily coming to dominate the rest of the population.  If some people can whack others with impunity then that ability means they can easily gain power over others.  As a result of this, they can use force against anyone who disobeys them with little likelihood of retaliation or resistance.  This is a recipe for hierarchy and centralization of power into a small elite. 

2

WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Neg Addendum

Anarchy is the only way to truly pre-empt nuclear war

Kevin Martin, Staff Writer, Commondreams.org, “Invitation to Global Anarchy,” June, 02, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0624-06.htm

President Bush and his administration have recently outlined a policy dubbed "strike first" —launching pre-emptive attacks on countries or terrorist organizations suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Let’s get this straight: Bush, despite the recent treaty signed with Russia, plans to keep 10,000 nuclear warheads indefinitely. Moreover, he plans to develop new types of nuclear weapons, target non-nuclear states, and, most likely, resume full-scale nuclear testing.

Yet under "strike first," if he says another country is attempting to obtain WMD, Bush deigns onto himself the right to launch a pre-emptive attack. Even if he can’t prove it and even if an attack against our country is not imminent, he claims, under this policy, the right to attack any country.

Despite any credible evidence connecting Iraq to the 9/11 attacks and the serious concerns of senior military officials, the administration plans to debut this policy as soon as they can—with an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

David Sanger wrote in a New York Times article on June 17, "The administration, not surprisingly, is arguing for the widest possible latitude in implementing this policy, making the case that only it can define what poses a major and imminent threat to national security." The article continued, "... Mr. Bush's new policy could amount to ultimate unilateralism, because it reserves the right to determine what constitutes a threat to American security and to act even if that threat is not judged imminent."

Have our so-called leaders thought about the implications of this? Or are they so full of hubris, so drunk on power that they think they can do anything and that the rest of the world will swallow it whole, just as the supine media and a cowed Congress have in this country?

Under this same doctrine, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea would be justified in attacking the United States to "pre-empt" our development of new types of nuclear weapons which target them (as Bush outlined in his Nuclear Posture Review). However, if other countries were to do this, we would rightfully call it what it is—an act of aggression.

This "strike first" policy, along with Bush’s provocative, aggressive new nuclear weapons doctrine, will surely lead to two things—nuclear proliferation and more terrorism—making America and the world far less, rather than more secure. Bush’s policy practically invites attacks on Washington, New York, or other American cities. 

3

WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Neg Addendum

The Alternative – re-conceptualize our views of anarchism to break down class norms to effectively implement anarchism and create individual equality in the long term

Question-Everything.mahost.org, Anarchist website, date accessed: 7/26/06, “On the State.”

Due to the way they are structured, all states are a mechanism by which a minority imposes its will on a majority.  They are not neutral bodies that can be used by any group for whatever purpose they desire.  So-called "democratic" states are a mechanism by which a minority imposes its will on the majority; they just attempt to fool the majority into thinking that they are in charge when they aren't.  Representative democracy is a form of minority rule that pretends not to be.  States are not neutral tools that anyone can use for any purpose; they are autonomous organizations that develop their own dynamics & interests. 

The state is a particular kind of social relation, a set of ways in which humans behave and interact with each other.  The state is a hierarchical social relationship, in which some people obey other people.  The state organizes society in a pyramidal manner, with individuals trained to obey orders and/or give orders.   In order to abolish the state it is necessary to change this behavior, for people on the bottom to stop obeying the orders of those on the top and to destroy the capacity of those on the top to force those below to obey.  If the state were to suddenly disappear without any corresponding change in behavior there would be a social breakdown followed by the recreation of the state.  If most people are used to obeying orders (as they are under a state) and continue to behave in the same way in the absence of people giving orders, then society will breakdown (because there is no longer anyone giving orders and people are not organizing themselves in a manner that they don't need to be given orders) and the state will soon be rebuilt.  If, however, members of that society choose to change their behavior and stop depending on others giving them orders, to organize society in a non-hierarchical manner as free and equal individuals, then such results will not occur.    In order for a society to go from having a state to not having a state it is necessary for most members of that society to choose not to obey orders and to instead form alternative ways of running society that do not require some giving orders and others obeying them.  They must change their behavior to a non-hierarchical form instead of a hierarchical form.  The state cannot be destroyed by a few pounds of explosives; it can only be abolished through a popular rebellion from the bottom up.   The most direct way to do this is through a large anarchist movement.   Examples of this include the Ukrainian, Manchurian and Spanish revolutions, all of which prove that anarchy works and that it is possible to go from a state society to a stateless society.  The reason these three were defeated was not because of any intrinsic defect with anarchism, but because they were vastly outgunned by statist enemies, who drowned the revolutions in blood, and because they made the mistake of allying with authoritarian leftists, who shot the anarchists in the back.  There are also examples of similar changes of behavior beginning in situations where there was no anarchist movement or the anarchist movement was small, such as parts of the French, Russian, and Iranian revolutions.  However, these are less likely to result in a stateless society because the lack of mass anarchist consciousness makes it easy for authoritarian groups to channel rebellion in a direction that benefits them and does not lead to a stateless society. 

4