Friday, 10 Oct 2025
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • DMCA
logo logo
  • World
  • Politics
  • Crime
  • Economy
  • Tech & Science
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • More
    • Education
    • Celebrities
    • Culture and Arts
    • Environment
    • Health and Wellness
    • Lifestyle
  • đŸ”„
  • Trump
  • VIDEO
  • House
  • White
  • ScienceAlert
  • Trumps
  • Watch
  • man
  • Health
  • Season
Font ResizerAa
American FocusAmerican Focus
Search
  • World
  • Politics
  • Crime
  • Economy
  • Tech & Science
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • More
    • Education
    • Celebrities
    • Culture and Arts
    • Environment
    • Health and Wellness
    • Lifestyle
Follow US
© 2024 americanfocus.online – All Rights Reserved.
American Focus > Blog > Economy > Political Violence in Minnesota and Elsewhere
Economy

Political Violence in Minnesota and Elsewhere

Last updated: June 19, 2025 7:45 am
Share
Political Violence in Minnesota and Elsewhere
SHARE

Political violence is defined as violence driven by political motives. To clarify further, the distinction between political violence and everyday violence lies in the former’s intent to either resist or advocate for the imposition of collective decisions on others. For instance, proponents on “the left” may seek to enforce wealth redistribution to benefit the underprivileged, while those on “the right” might advocate for increased state surveillance and militarization of law enforcement. This characterization may come across as overly simplistic; however, the essence of political violence revolves around conflicts concerning shared societal decisions.

Now, let’s entertain a hypothetical scenario: a society devoid of collective choices. To make this thought experiment foolproof, we must also presume that there is no desire for political decisions—everyone accepts a set of broad and traditional rules, like the prohibition against murder and theft. In this utopia, individuals desire a laissez-faire existence and willingly accept its consequences. While many may doubt the feasibility or stability of such a world, this scenario is instrumental in distinguishing political violence from other forms of violence. Even in this society, while common crimes might persist, and perhaps a Hobbesian “war of all against all” might erupt, there would be no political violence—unless one counts the skirmishes over the very existence of a state itself. Without the “political,” there can be no political violence.

Butler Shaffer, a law professor at the University of Miami, employed psychological frameworks to assert that one root cause of societal violence lies within the political-legal system, which enforces arbitrary limitations on individuals’ non-coercive actions (as discussed in his work “Violence as a Product of Imposed Order,” University of Miami Law Review 29 [1975]). Similarly, Auberon Herbert, a British individualist anarchist from the late 19th century, contended that the revolutionary terrorists of his era were the grotesque progeny of the state. He argued that terrorism is essentially “the essence of government,” with revolutionaries merely seeking to impose an alternative set of collective choices (as explored in my post “Terrorism as ‘the Essence of Government’”). These perspectives suggest that politics, which inherently involves violence or threats thereof, naturally incites further violence.

See also  BOJ warns US tariff uncertainty may hurt confidence, economy

James Buchanan and his school of thought demonstrate a clever attempt to circumvent the quandary between the absence of collective choice (an anarchist ideal) and the violence stemming from collective decisions. He invites us to envision a unanimous social contract, one to which all individuals consent because it embodies a minimal set of rules beneficial to everyone (see his influential work The Limits of Liberty and my review of the book). At this level of consensus, politics ceases to be coercive; rather, it transforms into a voluntary political exchange aimed at the future creation of “public goods.” It’s hard to label any intervention as authoritarian or violent if it receives unanimous consent.

Buchanan’s perspective is inherently democratic, as he posits that “each man counts for one.” Democracy is deemed valuable only when it approaches unanimity. This notion of a free society sharply contrasts with the idea of self-governance as an unrestricted government by the majority, which we might refer to as naïve democratism.

The more individuals’ lives are governed by collective choices or the greater the demand for them, the higher the potential for political violence. Those who haven’t voted for or disagree with the constraints imposed upon them may find themselves with motives to resist, and in certain circumstances, to resort to violence. It’s worth noting that the individuals who take action are often not the most astute, yet this does not invalidate the overarching argument. Contemporary “philosophical” or “reluctant” anarchists like Michael Huemer or Anthony de Jasay assert that there is no moral obligation to obey the state, though they do not advocate for violent revolt, at least in a context where a society is more free than unfree.

See also  Trump's immigration response has political risks : NPR

Keep in mind that the absence of overt political violence does not equate to the absence of political violence. A state may wield such immense power that its threats of violence effectively deter most forms of resistance, including violent uprisings. Many individuals may feel that their preferences have been coercively disregarded, yet they see no viable means for effective resistance.

The tragic assassination of Minnesota Democratic politicians on June 14 serves as a stark reminder of how naïve democratism can perpetuate violence. From Buchanan’s constitutional perspective, we can only anticipate legitimacy and acceptance from government decisions that adhere to rules virtually embraced by all. When a fragile minority disregards the preferences of a significant portion of the populace, it sets the stage for potential political violence. Despite their slender majority in the state legislature, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (the Minnesota chapter of the Democratic Party) attempted to pass legislation that faced considerable opposition from voters. Regarding Melissa Hortman, one of the slain politicians, the Wall Street Journal noted: (“Minnesota Lawmaker Killed in ‘Act of Targeted Political Violence,’” June 14, 2015):

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last year, Hortman emphasized the importance for members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to utilize their legislative majority to advance progressive legislation. “The [Democratic] governor’s viewpoint, and ours, was that winning elections serves a purpose,” she stated at that time. “All the initiatives we discussed for the 2023-24 session were part of our campaign platform.”

This naĂŻve democratism not only incites political discord and violence but also allows both the left and the right to position themselves as defenders of democracy. Ultimately, the focus should be on preserving individual liberty, which is under threat from both ends of the conventional political spectrum. This issue is similarly observable at the federal level, with the platforms of the two major parties currently inverted compared to the situation in Minnesota. Such problems are prevalent in most, if not all, democratic nations, albeit they may be more acute or visible in the United States at this moment.

See also  Thryv Holdings, Inc. (THRY): A Bull Case Theory

TAGGED:MinnesotaPoliticalViolence
Share This Article
Twitter Email Copy Link Print
Previous Article Indonesia to sanction companies for environmental breaches at nickel industrial park Indonesia to sanction companies for environmental breaches at nickel industrial park
Next Article Amazon Prime Is Adding This True Crime Doc in July — and I Can’t Wait to Watch Amazon Prime Is Adding This True Crime Doc in July — and I Can’t Wait to Watch
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Posts

Aurora officials release new details of fatal police shooting

The new chief of the Aurora Police Department confirmed on Monday that the man fatally…

October 7, 2024

Eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Medicaid My Administration has been relentlessly committed to rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in Government programs to preserve and protect them for those who rely most on them. The Medicaid program was designed to be a program to compassionately provide taxpayer dollars to healthcare providers who offer care to the most vulnerable Americans. To keep payments reasonable, billable costs for such care were historically capped at the same level that healthcare providers could receive from Medicare. The State and Federal Governments jointly shared this cost burden to ensure those of lesser means did not go untreated. Under the Biden Administration, States and healthcare providers were permitted to game the system. For example, States “taxed” healthcare providers, but sent the same money back to them in the form of a “Medicaid payment,” which automatically unlocked for healthcare providers an additional “burden-sharing” payment from the Federal Government. Through this gimmick, the State could avoid contributing money toward Medicaid services, meaning the State no longer had a reason to be prudent in the amount of reimbursement provided. Instead of paying Medicare rates, many States that utilize these arrangements now pay the same healthcare providers almost three times the Medicare amount, a practice encouraged by the Biden Administration. These State Directed Payments have rapidly accelerated, quadrupling in magnitude over the last 4 years and reaching $110 billion in 2024 alone. This trajectory threatens the Federal Treasury and Medicaid’s long-term stability, and the imbalance between Medicaid and Medicare patients threatens to jeopardize access to care for our seniors. I pledged to protect and improve these important Government healthcare programs for those that rely on them. Seniors on Medicare and Medicaid recipients both deserve access to quality care in a system free from the fraud, waste, and abuse, that enriches the unscrupulous and jeopardizes the programs themselves. We will take action to continue to love and cherish the Medicare and Medicaid programs to ensure they are preserved for those who need them most. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall therefore take appropriate action to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, including by ensuring Medicaid payments rates are not higher than Medicare, to the extent permitted by applicable law. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE CENTERS FOR…

June 6, 2025

School covered up bullying complaints before 10-year-old Sammy Tuesch’s suicide: lawsuit

The tragic story of 10-year-old Sammy Teusch, who took his own life after enduring relentless…

December 22, 2024

Austrian chancellor says EU asylum rules are no longer fit for purpose

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite…

May 25, 2025

The Secret to Happiness Seems to Depend Upon You, Study Finds : ScienceAlert

The Pursuit of Happiness: Understanding the Secrets to Personal Fulfillment Throughout history, humans have achieved…

May 17, 2025

You Might Also Like

When Godzilla Breaks Windows
Economy

When Godzilla Breaks Windows

October 10, 2025
Presidential Message on National Domestic Violence Awareness Month
The White House

Presidential Message on National Domestic Violence Awareness Month

October 10, 2025
Peter Schiff Describes Bitcoin’s Jump Over 6,000 As ‘Bear Market Rally’: ‘Too Early For Bitcoiners To Get Excited…’
Economy

Peter Schiff Describes Bitcoin’s Jump Over $126,000 As ‘Bear Market Rally’: ‘Too Early For Bitcoiners To Get Excited…’

October 10, 2025
Man arrested over death threats to conservative podcaster Benny Johnson as DOJ cracks down on violent political rhetoric
World News

Man arrested over death threats to conservative podcaster Benny Johnson as DOJ cracks down on violent political rhetoric

October 10, 2025
logo logo
Facebook Twitter Youtube

About US


Explore global affairs, political insights, and linguistic origins. Stay informed with our comprehensive coverage of world news, politics, and Lifestyle.

Top Categories
  • Crime
  • Environment
  • Sports
  • Tech and Science
Usefull Links
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • DMCA

© 2024 americanfocus.online –  All Rights Reserved.

Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?