Who Has the Right to Violence in Argentina?

The state's monopoly on violence may not be as absolute as it may sometimes seem. Yes, the state seems to be the only one with the authority to commit acts of approved violence.  But, as Dr. Jackson discussed, that authority may be transferred to the state from another source.  In most modern states, we would like to believe that the source is the will of the people.

This past week I was invited to attend an exhibit of encaustic pieces at the Embassy of Argentina.  The date and time were rearranged several times to avoid protests that have been taking place outside of the Embassy.  It was interesting to see such a great event and exhibit while being on Argentinian soil, knowing that the state is currently facing so much turmoil and upheaval.  The citizens of Argentina are in turmoil about violence possibly used by the state and the government is shuffling its personnel around trying to subdue the unrest.

I was thinking about the level of distrust that is occurring in Argentina now and the reason for it as I listened to Dr. Jackson and read out materials this week.  And I have come to the conclusion that while the state may consider itself the sole owner of the authority and right to commit justified violence, the citizens consider themselves the source of such authority.  There is a national feeling of betrayal when that transferred authority is abused.  And now the people of Argentina, like everywhere, feel that they are in a position to reclaim  their authority.  Obviously President Fernandez does not agree.  

So who controls the violence now?  This is something the people of Argentina will have to sort out, but one thing is certain: the state does not clear, exclusive rights.