3 ms·
> monopoly on violence So, you’re using Max Weber’s theory of the state in a contradictory way in my reading. Weber’s theory of the state as being the society
by uncomputation 5y ago
> monopoly on violence
So, you’re using Max Weber’s theory of the state in a contradictory way in my reading. Weber’s theory of the state as being the society which derives its authority from a legitimate monopoly on violence was contrasted _against_ the very “natural liberties” that you seem to espouse (e.g. the rights of peeping toms, the rights of private shopkeepers, and the limitation of the government). Either you argue that the legitimacy of the state stems from its legitimate monopoly on violence as a community (thus allowing it to dictate “decency” as you say) or you argue that the legitimacy of the state derives from the citizenry’s own natural rights to self governance and liberty.
- thegrimmest 5y agoI'm not strictly arguing for Weber. I'm basically proposing that beyond majority consensus, we have no way of determining that the peeping toms or the discriminatory shopkeepers are in the wrong. In combination with the problems of majority consensus (if a majority agree to murder a minority, is that okay?), the presupposition that we are all equal, and have a right to exist as and where we are, the only reasonable conclusion is to enforce the absolute minimum of law required to maintain the peaceful coexistence that differentiates civilization. This is doubly true in a multicultural society.