Hmm. Why am I getting the impression this is about as good as it is going to get regarding your grasp of the facts? :) — apokrisis

Fair enough. Wrong crowd, I suppose.

If you're more interested in the very notion of the political with it's connotations of inclusion and exclusion, maybe check out something like Bonnie Honig's Politics Theory and the Displacement of Politics, or even Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition. — StreetlightX

Sort of, and thank you. But moreso in practical responses to problem. My vagueness acknowledged. I thought what I was referring to would be more obvious than it apparently is. Despite vagueness.

usual — apokrisis

It's 2016.

but be ruled by collectively sensible laws. — apokrisis

Yes, without the threat of violence - from the rulers or the threats to the rulers. "How would this work?" is my basic question.

I didn't read entire thread, but I thought it would be fascinating to hear your thoughts on a larger version - like the bombing of a pharmaceutical facility in the Sudan under the Clinton administration. Supposing complicity is ruled out, would you require torture or desire it for those most directly involved in orchestration/fumble supposing there were a few "innovators" involved and at the heart of the orchestration/stumble? Would it make a difference if they were "conductors" or "fumblers?"

That's fair. My post was vague. But I did note that. And that's the question (and a couple others as noted in the OP) I was/am fascinated with. As a question. You didn't counter my current possible example, though, in that regard. I said: Agamben seems to me to think the capacity for violence has something to do with political sovereignty. And I said: The United States seemingly has a lot of capacity for violence bound up with its "superpower" status. And I asked for notes on this, basically. Vague? Sure. I apologize, but I did divulge "where I'm at." Your response? Bizarre.

I reread this with the thought in mind that maybe I misunderstood or missed something somehow. I would like to repeat myself - well not "like to" exactly but it seems warranted - I don't think you addressed my post at all - possibly didn't read it. It wasn't difficult to understand if brevity is your bag.

If you think I'm "magnifying a storyline" or one of the authors I'm citing, why not just specify who it is, what storyline you mean, and what one I or the authors you have in mind you think to be promoting or ignoring? I realize my post wasn't super-specific - but fuck, dude. Grow up. Part of my original post included an appeal for specificity and asked for acknowledgement of my own vagueness and generality.

This doesn't really seem to me to address the above.