3 ms·
The term "monopoly on violence" does not mean the sole user of violence or even a frequent user, merely that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka
by ummwhat 7y ago
The term "monopoly on violence" does not mean the sole user of violence or even a frequent user, merely that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- 0815test 7y ago> that anyone who wishes to use violence legitimately (aka legally) must get permission from the monopoly holder. Yes, but then I kinda fail to unambiguously see what you mean by "unsavory" - if these groups are successfully regulating the use of violence within their territory, that means they're providing the most basic function of a state. It just seems to be a fact about society that new states originally get started mostly when "roving bandits" start providing basic security within some stable territory and thus acting as "stationary bandits". It's not that clear why the fact that these groups are "unsavory" should be an obstacle to acknowledging this dynamic.