poorbaldmonkey on Nostr: Would uniformed agents of the State turn on their own people? The answer is ...

Would uniformed agents of the State turn on their own people?

The answer is undoubtedly yes.

Would all of them?

The answer is undoubtedly no.

However, it's the State's ability to control the machines and the currency that are key here.

The uniformed agents of the State that refuse the orders of the State quickly lose their positions as agents. At that point, they lose access to the weapons and capital of the State. And those agents are simply replaced by others who will follow orders and enforce tyranny gleefully.

I think it's the wrong approach to view any agent of the state as an individual but rather a position. Sure, it's individuals who hold those positions of authority, but it's not the individual that is important but the position itself.

So, will friendly Officer Joe be willing to inact tyranny? Let's say no to this one. But, as soon as friendly Officer Joe refuses the order, he becomes just regular old Joe and is replaced by Bob who will do anything and everything ordered no matter how depraved.

Now, not only is Joe no longer in a position of authority to harm or help, but depending on how desperate the State becomes, he and his family might find themselves as the focus of State tyranny.

So, I believe that it's a mistake to look to anyone acting as an agent of the State as either a problem or a solution. It's the existence of the position and the mechanisms of enforcement that can be either a solution or a problem.

And as long as the State has ill intentions, someone will be happy to fill that role.

The exception would be if the State can't get ahead of potential insubordination ahead of ordering tyrannical actions. If the mechanisms of forced subordination come before a change in personal can occur, then the State may have a problem controlling its own forces.

Just my thoughts. I could easily be wrong.