4 ms·

This is exactly wrong. In political theory, the defining characteristic of a government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force (and accordingly on anythi

This is exactly wrong. In political theory, the defining characteristic of a government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force (and accordingly on anything over which it exercises that force).

digitaltrees 6y ago
But there isn’t one government in most of America. Federal, state, and local governments have overlapping jurisdiction. There are entire bodies of law devoted to resolving this competition. And this competition between agencies changes the law and internal culture of law enforcement organizations. You don’t think the local sheriff will think twice about over stepping if the FBI takes their cases or punished them for over reach? An abstract principle in political theory for the sake of debate isn’t an infallible axiom. Yes the sovereign, as in all the units of government taken as a whole have exclusive rights to violent force, but in practice, most sovereigns subdivide that right in competing bodies to create checks and balances and place the nexus of decision making in the right sphere of influence (some problems need to be addressed at the local level like waste water management, others at the federal level like interstate commerce).
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  I honestly don't understand what your point is. Whatever government we're talking about has, by definition, a monopoly on the use of force. It's real. It wasn't pulled out of an abstract principle hat by political scientists. Different governments may divvy up or squabble over the scope of their respective monopolies, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject? How can you say there is a monopoly when you could be in county prison, state prison, or federal prison? Those are competing forces subject to different constituencies. My point quite simply is the false dichotomy that is presented that companies are fundamentally better and more innovative because they alone are subject to competition is a false dichotomy. Governments are less affected by competition but it does exist through intergovernmental divisions of power and overlapping jurisdiction. Governments also have a monopoly on granting the right to operate a business. They can and do limit ability to operate (try to be a lawyer with out government regulated credentials). So you’re basically saying when government confers this right to operate on a C Corp that is competition but when it confers the right to a sherif and police force and immigration agency to detain people that’s not competition. Agencies absolutely complete for resources, public praise, and employee recruitment; and they worry that their effectiveness and policies will harm them just the same. Further, this false dichotomy is used to distract from the real important insight that government is uniquely positioned to address problems no company or market force could address. One, of many clear examples is the longer time horizon and risk taking the government can take for basic research. Companies have been able to innovate on top of many government funded projects like the internet, gps, interstate highways, self driving cars (remember those crazy darpa funded competitions with $5M prize for a team that got a Humvee to drive its self in the desert?). No company could invest for decades at network scale like governments can and yet we applaud their innovative ability and demonize governments by ignoring the foundation it provides for innovation in the first place. Silicon Valley itself only exists because nasa brought a ton of scientists to the Bay Area and a critical mass of tech oriented families happened to be in an area. Well guess what their kids ended up being hacker friends in garages building products. Oh and by the way “all the tea in China” is an Interesting quote given that the British East India company, a literal private corporation, was granted a monopoly on the use of force and acted as a quasi government all while being an extremely “innovative” (And horribly brutal/evil company)
    - staticautomatic 6y ago
      The fact that government agencies compete in some senses has nothing to do with the fact that governments have monopolies on the use of force.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject? The two entities collectively constitute the government which has a monopoly on legitimate use of force. You draw a boundary around the legitimate use of force, and whatever is inside the boundary is the government, no matter how many formal entities it presents as or what they are called (or how many entities exist outside the boundary and purport to be the government.)
- unishark 6y ago
  The supremacy clause of the constitution says that the federal government wins all conflicts with lower governments. The 10th amendment states powers not explicitly granted (i.e. claimed) in the constitution for the federal government are reserved for the states or people. There is not actual competition in the system, even if it is complex and messy in implementation.

This is exactly wrong. In political theory, the defining characteristic of a government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force (and accordingly on anything over which it exercises that force).

digitaltrees 6y ago

But there isn’t one government in most of America. Federal, state, and local governments have overlapping jurisdiction. There are entire bodies of law devoted to resolving this competition. And this competition between agencies changes the law and internal culture of law enforcement organizations. You don’t think the local sheriff will think twice about over stepping if the FBI takes their cases or punished them for over reach? An abstract principle in political theory for the sake of debate isn’t an infallible axiom. Yes the sovereign, as in all the units of government taken as a whole have exclusive rights to violent force, but in practice, most sovereigns subdivide that right in competing bodies to create checks and balances and place the nexus of decision making in the right sphere of influence (some problems need to be addressed at the local level like waste water management, others at the federal level like interstate commerce).

staticautomatic 6y ago
I honestly don't understand what your point is. Whatever government we're talking about has, by definition, a monopoly on the use of force. It's real. It wasn't pulled out of an abstract principle hat by political scientists. Different governments may divvy up or squabble over the scope of their respective monopolies, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject? How can you say there is a monopoly when you could be in county prison, state prison, or federal prison? Those are competing forces subject to different constituencies. My point quite simply is the false dichotomy that is presented that companies are fundamentally better and more innovative because they alone are subject to competition is a false dichotomy. Governments are less affected by competition but it does exist through intergovernmental divisions of power and overlapping jurisdiction. Governments also have a monopoly on granting the right to operate a business. They can and do limit ability to operate (try to be a lawyer with out government regulated credentials). So you’re basically saying when government confers this right to operate on a C Corp that is competition but when it confers the right to a sherif and police force and immigration agency to detain people that’s not competition. Agencies absolutely complete for resources, public praise, and employee recruitment; and they worry that their effectiveness and policies will harm them just the same. Further, this false dichotomy is used to distract from the real important insight that government is uniquely positioned to address problems no company or market force could address. One, of many clear examples is the longer time horizon and risk taking the government can take for basic research. Companies have been able to innovate on top of many government funded projects like the internet, gps, interstate highways, self driving cars (remember those crazy darpa funded competitions with $5M prize for a team that got a Humvee to drive its self in the desert?). No company could invest for decades at network scale like governments can and yet we applaud their innovative ability and demonize governments by ignoring the foundation it provides for innovation in the first place. Silicon Valley itself only exists because nasa brought a ton of scientists to the Bay Area and a critical mass of tech oriented families happened to be in an area. Well guess what their kids ended up being hacker friends in garages building products. Oh and by the way “all the tea in China” is an Interesting quote given that the British East India company, a literal private corporation, was granted a monopoly on the use of force and acted as a quasi government all while being an extremely “innovative” (And horribly brutal/evil company)
  - staticautomatic 6y ago
    The fact that government agencies compete in some senses has nothing to do with the fact that governments have monopolies on the use of force.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject? The two entities collectively constitute the government which has a monopoly on legitimate use of force. You draw a boundary around the legitimate use of force, and whatever is inside the boundary is the government, no matter how many formal entities it presents as or what they are called (or how many entities exist outside the boundary and purport to be the government.)
unishark 6y ago
The supremacy clause of the constitution says that the federal government wins all conflicts with lower governments. The 10th amendment states powers not explicitly granted (i.e. claimed) in the constitution for the federal government are reserved for the states or people. There is not actual competition in the system, even if it is complex and messy in implementation.