>>10529>Well, state violence is only directed at harming and killing bad people. Even if we presume the state dictates who equates to bad, that isn't true.
Suspects are not always actually criminals. Nor does the person assumed to be a suspect always actually be one.
Identity is not always conformable, nor is it always known the facts of a situation.
Even if we assume law is automatically just, violence still is committed against innocents as a matter of course.
>That sounds moral, right?Not really. Truth be told, given your seeming disagreement with the concept of morality by right of force, I've got no idea your metric for morality at all.
Is it just what the state says?
Why is that moral to you?
Thus far, I've not seen an argument of philosophy for your position, just an assertion.
>It's hard for a state to really go too far, so we accept that as well.You.
I certainly don't.
Nor do I think it's a commonly accepted item.
>Obviously, this goes in a bit of a circle logically. So I think it works best when you begin by feeling the state is trustworthy in identifying and harming bad people, and helping good people. This retains the circular logic, it simply applies the responsibility elsewhere.
You've assumed the state defines good and bad.
This is not changed whether or not you trust or distrust the state to make that characterization.
In fact, the logic makes it impossible not to trust the state in the matter. They are the arbiters of good and bad, thus it's not a matter of trust, merely definition.
Again, though, there's not an argument of logic made for why the state dictates morality to begin with. Especially given we've set aside power as the defining characteristic, it seems.