3 ms·

The state by definition has monopoly on violence, not power in general. You don't want a state with total centralized power over the economy because you end up

by aianus 9y ago

The state by definition has monopoly on violence, not power in general. You don't want a state with total centralized power over the economy because you end up with places like North Korea or the USSR with uncompetitive industry and shortages.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Violence is the most direct way to apply power, but not the only one. "Monopoly on violence" sounds cute, but it's not the precise and only thing the state is supposed to have. What good is a state so disconnected from money that it can't even fund its violence-applying apparatus? Also: control over money doesn't imply control over markets. As evidenced by pretty much all western countries.
- aianus 9y ago
  I didn't say the state doesn't have other forms of power, only that they don't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on it. Anyways, Bitcoin doesn't seem like much of a threat to the kind of power developed countries have over their currencies. The USD isn't going anywhere and nobody is using cryptos for day to day purchases or servicing debt so the fed will remain firmly in control of the money supply and interest rates. It is much more of a threat as a method of capital flight to undeveloped countries (eg. China) who like robbing their citizens through inflation, currency manipulation, and capital controls. I think that's a great thing.
amalcon 9y ago
I strongly dislike that definition of the state. Such a state as described in the pithy phrase has never actually existed. Even the very strongest states have violence that the state was powerless to stop. That objection can only be resolved by reducing the strength of the term "monopoly" to something more like plurality control, but then it does apply to power in general. Simply put, if some other coalition has more general power than the state, then it has the option to become the de-facto state. There are lots of terms for this, depending on the party with the power: from revolt and coup to occupation to ineffective government. There's a discussion to be had about how to best allocate that plurality control to minimize abuse, and physical force is likely a component of such an allocation. It's far from clear, however, that an allocation of only physical force is viable even if it is desirable.

by aianus 9y ago

TeMPOraL 9y ago

Violence is the most direct way to apply power, but not the only one. "Monopoly on violence" sounds cute, but it's not the precise and only thing the state is supposed to have. What good is a state so disconnected from money that it can't even fund its violence-applying apparatus? Also: control over money doesn't imply control over markets. As evidenced by pretty much all western countries.

aianus 9y ago
I didn't say the state doesn't have other forms of power, only that they don't (and shouldn't) have a monopoly on it. Anyways, Bitcoin doesn't seem like much of a threat to the kind of power developed countries have over their currencies. The USD isn't going anywhere and nobody is using cryptos for day to day purchases or servicing debt so the fed will remain firmly in control of the money supply and interest rates. It is much more of a threat as a method of capital flight to undeveloped countries (eg. China) who like robbing their citizens through inflation, currency manipulation, and capital controls. I think that's a great thing.

amalcon 9y ago

I strongly dislike that definition of the state. Such a state as described in the pithy phrase has never actually existed. Even the very strongest states have violence that the state was powerless to stop. That objection can only be resolved by reducing the strength of the term "monopoly" to something more like plurality control, but then it does apply to power in general. Simply put, if some other coalition has more general power than the state, then it has the option to become the de-facto state. There are lots of terms for this, depending on the party with the power: from revolt and coup to occupation to ineffective government. There's a discussion to be had about how to best allocate that plurality control to minimize abuse, and physical force is likely a component of such an allocation. It's far from clear, however, that an allocation of only physical force is viable even if it is desirable.