It's not like I don't get that impulse, but you want that as the permanent state of things or as a temporary mechanism to exert change?
Cause I can see the latter but not the former. But the latter also means that eventually a monopoly of force will once again ossify. See the civil war, for a perfect example of a temporary situation where the monopoly of force devolves into multiple competing sources of force. In the case if the American civil war, though it cost a lot of lives, there was a generally positive change made as a result.
But for a counter example take the current Syrian civil war. There's no telling how it will eventually end but based on current trends it seems like a recipe for potentially perpetual conflict and instability with no real silver lining at the end of it all.
|