3 ms·

> The state’s monopoly on violence should be used judiciously and sparingly to secure our individual rights, not as a catch-all tool for coercing (or outright f

> The state’s monopoly on violence should be used judiciously and sparingly to secure our individual rights, not as a catch-all tool for coercing (or outright forcing) people into making the choices you want them to. May I steal this, please? I know a few people who don't get my political philosophy, and I want to help them understand.

teakettle42 4y ago
> May I steal this, please? Of course. Glad it was cogent enough to be useful.
- rpmisms 4y ago
  Succinct is probably the best word. You've essentially described the Non-Aggression Principle as it applies to government.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 4y ago
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54. https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod... There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard, and was further popularised by Nozick.

teakettle42 4y ago

> May I steal this, please? Of course. Glad it was cogent enough to be useful.

rpmisms 4y ago
Succinct is probably the best word. You've essentially described the Non-Aggression Principle as it applies to government.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 4y ago

The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state. Absent this, one of three conditions exist; 1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state. 2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power). 3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State. The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54. https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod... There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard, and was further popularised by Nozick.