WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Neg Addendum 1

STATISM K – NEG ADDENDUM

1. Index

2. The state controls its citizens thru violence

3. Anarchy solves nuclear war

4. Alternative solves
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Neg Addendum 2

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.
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Neg Addendum 3

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.
WNDI 2k6 Statism K – Neg Addendum 4

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.