3 ms·

> You own your domain name in the same sense that you own any property in a society where governments have overwhelming force at their disposal. You might as w

> You own your domain name in the same sense that you own any property in a society where governments have overwhelming force at their disposal. You might as well say "...in any society." If a government doesn't claim a monopoly on violence, someone else will.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> You might as well say "...in any society." If a government doesn't claim a monopoly on violence, someone else will. Whichever entity (even if nominally a collection of entities considered together) has (whether or not it claims) a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is the government, whatever it calls itself.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. A society without a government that monopolizes force can't really exist, or at least not for long.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    I think you've just crushed a lot of libertarian dreams. But you're right. If there is no official and relatively accountable government, it would be just some war lord of some other type of bully taking over and demanding their own "tax" to let you be in any given area.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > A society without a government that monopolizes force can't really exist, or at least not for long. This is falsified by many historical examples. I gave one upthread (some of the American colonies, such as Pennsylvania in the early 1700s). Another would be saga period Iceland, which existed for several centuries with no government that monopolized force. I think history does show that societies without a government that monopolizes force are vulnerable to a failure mode which basically consists of an outside entity being willing to invest enough resources to overwhelm the force available within the society, and thus establishing a government by takeover. This is what happened in both of the examples I gave above (Iceland was taken over by the King of Norway, and Pennsylvania ended up caught up in the general tightening of everything when the British decided to get tough on the colonies after the French and Indian War). In other words, any time a group of people try to set up for themselves a place where they can live the way they want to, interfering with no one else and with no one else interfering with them, it doesn't last; someone else always ends up coming in and taking over and trying to tell them what to do. I view this as a bug, not a feature.
pdonis 9y ago
I didn't say "monopoly on violence". I said "overwhelming force". It is perfectly possible for governments to have a monopoly on violence but still not have overwhelming force at their disposal: in fact that was the case when the US Constitution was written (for example, "keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment was intended to include private ownership of warships). It is also perfectly possible for no entity to have a monopoly on violence and for no entity to have overwhelming force at its disposal compared to others (for example, in a number of American colonies, such as Pennsylvania in the early 1700s, while there was technically a "government", it did not have a monopoly on violence and private enforcement of laws was common, with all citizens being in roughly the same position as far as the force at their disposal). I was merely recognizing the fact that, in today's world, governments, at least of developed countries like the US, do have overwhelming force at their disposal compared to private citizens. Whether that is because they have a monopoly on violence or for some other reason is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is simply that private citizens have to recognize and deal with the reality and limitations of what "ownership" means in today's world.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> You might as well say "...in any society." If a government doesn't claim a monopoly on violence, someone else will. Whichever entity (even if nominally a collection of entities considered together) has (whether or not it claims) a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is the government, whatever it calls itself.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. A society without a government that monopolizes force can't really exist, or at least not for long.
- mtgx 9y ago
  I think you've just crushed a lot of libertarian dreams. But you're right. If there is no official and relatively accountable government, it would be just some war lord of some other type of bully taking over and demanding their own "tax" to let you be in any given area.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > A society without a government that monopolizes force can't really exist, or at least not for long. This is falsified by many historical examples. I gave one upthread (some of the American colonies, such as Pennsylvania in the early 1700s). Another would be saga period Iceland, which existed for several centuries with no government that monopolized force. I think history does show that societies without a government that monopolizes force are vulnerable to a failure mode which basically consists of an outside entity being willing to invest enough resources to overwhelm the force available within the society, and thus establishing a government by takeover. This is what happened in both of the examples I gave above (Iceland was taken over by the King of Norway, and Pennsylvania ended up caught up in the general tightening of everything when the British decided to get tough on the colonies after the French and Indian War). In other words, any time a group of people try to set up for themselves a place where they can live the way they want to, interfering with no one else and with no one else interfering with them, it doesn't last; someone else always ends up coming in and taking over and trying to tell them what to do. I view this as a bug, not a feature.

pdonis 9y ago

I didn't say "monopoly on violence". I said "overwhelming force". It is perfectly possible for governments to have a monopoly on violence but still not have overwhelming force at their disposal: in fact that was the case when the US Constitution was written (for example, "keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment was intended to include private ownership of warships). It is also perfectly possible for no entity to have a monopoly on violence and for no entity to have overwhelming force at its disposal compared to others (for example, in a number of American colonies, such as Pennsylvania in the early 1700s, while there was technically a "government", it did not have a monopoly on violence and private enforcement of laws was common, with all citizens being in roughly the same position as far as the force at their disposal). I was merely recognizing the fact that, in today's world, governments, at least of developed countries like the US, do have overwhelming force at their disposal compared to private citizens. Whether that is because they have a monopoly on violence or for some other reason is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is simply that private citizens have to recognize and deal with the reality and limitations of what "ownership" means in today's world.