Nearly every aspect of modern life is backed up by the law. Law is nothing more than codified coercion. As I noted elsewhere, this is not inherently bad - but every legal protection fundamentally springs from, and is enforced by, violence. This is one the main things discussed in sociology with regards to governments. It’s very basic.
As those with outsized influence are the ones who, well, have the most influence on the laws, as a demographic or class, such laws are naturally made to benefit the influential. As I mentioned before, this is not inherently a bad thing - many laws benefit ordinary people as well. But the vast corpus of private property and contract law, beneficial though it may sometimes be, has the primary and highest purpose of protecting the influence (ie the wealth) of the powerful.
The use of these laws to protect their interests, even while others starve, go deep into medical debt, or otherwise end up physically or mentally destroyed in the process of participating within the legal structures created by these laws, is a form of violence. It’s just a form of violence that people are willing to accept - some without even considering it, it would seem.
You should just say ahead of time that your beliefs are based on an interpretation of critical theory and loosening the actual definition of violence. It’ll save a ton of effort for the people who don’t want to bother with you.
That law is codified violence is not even close to exclusive to critical theory, unless you’re redefining critical theory as “All of modern sociology, all government philosophy of antiquity, and the ideologies of the Enlightenment”
You already live in a country where the domination of the rich is maintained by social violence.
Based on what? Exactly what violence is taking place that if it ended the rich would lose their “domination”?
Nearly every aspect of modern life is backed up by the law. Law is nothing more than codified coercion. As I noted elsewhere, this is not inherently bad - but every legal protection fundamentally springs from, and is enforced by, violence. This is one the main things discussed in sociology with regards to governments. It’s very basic.
As those with outsized influence are the ones who, well, have the most influence on the laws, as a demographic or class, such laws are naturally made to benefit the influential. As I mentioned before, this is not inherently a bad thing - many laws benefit ordinary people as well. But the vast corpus of private property and contract law, beneficial though it may sometimes be, has the primary and highest purpose of protecting the influence (ie the wealth) of the powerful.
The use of these laws to protect their interests, even while others starve, go deep into medical debt, or otherwise end up physically or mentally destroyed in the process of participating within the legal structures created by these laws, is a form of violence. It’s just a form of violence that people are willing to accept - some without even considering it, it would seem.
You should just say ahead of time that your beliefs are based on an interpretation of critical theory and loosening the actual definition of violence. It’ll save a ton of effort for the people who don’t want to bother with you.
That law is codified violence is not even close to exclusive to critical theory, unless you’re redefining critical theory as “All of modern sociology, all government philosophy of antiquity, and the ideologies of the Enlightenment”