The hiding places are innumerable, the

salvation only one, but the possibilities

of salvation, in turn, are as many as the
hiding places. There is a goal, but no
way; what we call the way is hesitation
(KAFKA, 2011, p. 192-193, our
translation).

First of all, we could do the question: is there a Leviathã able to save us? When we talk
about political changes by actions from society, we’re working with concepts of hope, happiness,
fear, so talking about how to come all at the same spot: what can the future provide?
Derrida’s analysys of Benjamin’s text goes through a way that don’t rely on this kind of
problem, for two reasons: the concern is about an avaliation of violence in principle and the interest
isn’t in reforms, but in fullfill time with action, open it for a new history to come.
Questions like “what is”, that try to make happen something that is not (performative) and
estabilyze meaning, seems to be far from Derrida’s use. But, the approach of violence, puts the law
in such a gosthly ethical light, that history (so fate) seems to be marked in a negative ontologie,
thus, confirming the idea os a exception state as rule.
Here, introducing the idea of exception, we could understand why the law keeps a right to
war or general strike. Doing this, we, also, could understand constitution as not a simple book or the
basis of modern State, but, as a ceromonial of peace, signifing that the victorious has established a
new law. But in a democracy, the victorious are not us? And, when it comes to violence, doesnt
have to be always a winner, a language the will become the new?
Going further, the establishment of this new law cant be founded on itself (logically
impossible) or on nothing (giving no way to criticize the basemant), but, at least aparently, the
founding is on a anomie space. In a sense of what Derrida’s was saying: “The notion of threat is
important here but also difcult, for the threat doesn’t come from outside. Law is both threating and
threatened by itself” (p. 1003). So, if is like this, why there’s such a number of people that is
molested but that accept it?
As H. L. A. Hart said, law is not necessaraly about “I'm bound to”, but “I have an obligation
to”. In social-political reforms, people want to be recognized, been abble to produce comodditys,
because, if not, they probably wont be seen even as human. So, if the fight is to be recognized by
the State, revolution would a simple turn and returning to the same spot. How catch up a disruptive
and revolutionary way: getting new experiences or even in an anarchical way: not supressing, but,
overcoming power.
By that, we couldn’t just argue a simple liberty, as formless freedom (a can i do everything
that i want), because it would be childish, without a ethical political perspective and remain away to
juridical essence of violence. So the critic should go to the body of law, expose the law as a history
of decay, since its origin (a work of a philosofy of history). But, how can we interrupt present based
on a divine violence, in a jewish perspective, so promissing use a language that is not majority
understood,excluding the possibilitie that each one could use their own language, being able to
relate themselves on there own way?
Maybe, we could transpose the religion terms in other ones. Even because the critic of
violence is pretty explicity for every one, and, should not be viewed with astonishment (at least not
a philosofical kind). Not going so far, the call to unveil fascism and, consequentily, for
responsability is urgent:
If they offer a deplorable spectacle, it is because these representative
institutions forget the revolutionary violence from which they are born. […]
 This amnesic denegation is not a psychological weakness, it is their statut
and their structure (p. 1015-107).
Of course, the aim of law is to hide violence as possible. By that, we can put things as war
and general strike into law, otherwise law would be always threatened by a extern violence and "It
is of little value what first has to be proved"(NIETZSCHE, 2006, p.19). If it is about violence on it’s
permanent iterability, the more drastic ways of the conservative violence gets shows the weakning
of the orign of law. But, it seems not just that. The power of law was painted in grotesque way until
here. This power can say what is true, can make die, but, also, it make laughs. The laught can be
sign of decay, because we're seen how impropriate it is. But, in other sense it could just show the
oposite:

[…] more evident in inescapability, an inevitability of power, which can

work with all its rigor and extreme will of its violent rationality, even when
it is in the hands of someone who is really disqualified (FOUCAULT, 2001,
p.17, our translation).
Crystal clear that we can not derive sollen from a sein, and, it does not seem to be the
prupose here. It's a critical proposition, that's an attitude that allows us to choose from and to
decively cut in history. As Kafka said: It still forces us to do what is negative; the positive has
already been given to us (2011, p. 193, our translation).

Referências:
KAFKA, F. Essencial. Tradução: Modesto Carone. São Paulo: Penguin Classics, 2011.
FOUCAULT, M. Os anormais: curso no Collège de France (1974-1975). São Paulo: Martins Fontes,
2001.
NIETZSCHE, F. W. Crepúsculo dos ídolos: ou como se filosofa com o martelo.
São Paulo: Ed. Companhia das Letras, 2006.