5 ms·

> You need a government with enough heft Governments have the monopoly on the use of legitimate force on their territory (and the means that go with it). Isn't

> You need a government with enough heft Governments have the monopoly on the use of legitimate force on their territory (and the means that go with it). Isn't that enough heft to go after any corporation?

actionfromafar 5y ago
I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion? A small country is dependent on good relations, foreign investors and on and on and on. Even at best, the small country gets limited clout. What can a small country do against a multinational company or against the WTO etc etc
- Jensson 5y ago
  They can make an economic union and together make an ultimatum against the company. See EU, it works without creating a large centralized country like US did.
dorkabork 5y ago
I can’t tell and I’m genuinely asking: are you suggesting we empower government to dispatch force against a private corporation? As in, the imaginary paperwork construct we all agree upon being an actual thing and accordingly empower with agency and a noun and a stock symbol? You want to park an Abrams in front of that thing and aim? (On reflection, what’s interesting about my question here is how it’s simultaneously metaphorical and literal through absolutely no effort of mine. The idea itself made that happen, rather oddly.)
MereInterest 5y ago
This phrase is frequently misunderstood, because people treat it as a truism about government, rather than the method by which to identify the government. It is not the case that the officially recognized government has a monopoly on violence. Rather, whichever group has a monopoly on violence is itself the government. If multiple groups can use violence, then there is no monopoly, and therefore no overarching government.
TimTheTinker 5y ago
> You need a government with enough heft Could you elucidate what you mean by "heft"? Sometimes I think people want a feeling of power over them (or others) without a clear sense of the mechanism or implications of that power. It could be any of: - more taxes - more government employees - more laws - more law enforcement - more bureaucracy - more regulations - more enforcement of regulations - more military power - more domestic espionage - more foreign espionage - martial law - less democracy I'd argue that having a better government does not imply more heft, but more efficiency and justice, without sacrificing democratic election and separation/limitation of powers. Some of the most efficient governments in the world also lack proper separation and limitation of powers, which degrades personal freedom. Democracy that leads to freedom is an extraordinarily tough balancing act; early US founders recognized that and publicly called on almighty God to help and aid them in their efforts.

actionfromafar 5y ago

I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion? A small country is dependent on good relations, foreign investors and on and on and on. Even at best, the small country gets limited clout. What can a small country do against a multinational company or against the WTO etc etc

Jensson 5y ago
They can make an economic union and together make an ultimatum against the company. See EU, it works without creating a large centralized country like US did.

dorkabork 5y ago

I can’t tell and I’m genuinely asking: are you suggesting we empower government to dispatch force against a private corporation? As in, the imaginary paperwork construct we all agree upon being an actual thing and accordingly empower with agency and a noun and a stock symbol? You want to park an Abrams in front of that thing and aim? (On reflection, what’s interesting about my question here is how it’s simultaneously metaphorical and literal through absolutely no effort of mine. The idea itself made that happen, rather oddly.)

MereInterest 5y ago

This phrase is frequently misunderstood, because people treat it as a truism about government, rather than the method by which to identify the government. It is not the case that the officially recognized government has a monopoly on violence. Rather, whichever group has a monopoly on violence is itself the government. If multiple groups can use violence, then there is no monopoly, and therefore no overarching government.

TimTheTinker 5y ago

> You need a government with enough heft Could you elucidate what you mean by "heft"? Sometimes I think people want a feeling of power over them (or others) without a clear sense of the mechanism or implications of that power. It could be any of: - more taxes - more government employees - more laws - more law enforcement - more bureaucracy - more regulations - more enforcement of regulations - more military power - more domestic espionage - more foreign espionage - martial law - less democracy I'd argue that having a better government does not imply more heft, but more efficiency and justice, without sacrificing democratic election and separation/limitation of powers. Some of the most efficient governments in the world also lack proper separation and limitation of powers, which degrades personal freedom. Democracy that leads to freedom is an extraordinarily tough balancing act; early US founders recognized that and publicly called on almighty God to help and aid them in their efforts.