4 ms·

Govt has a right to violence. You can't choose to stop using govt without moving yourself. They are an organization specifically to serve people. So they need t

Govt has a right to violence. You can't choose to stop using govt without moving yourself. They are an organization specifically to serve people. So they need to be held to higher standards.

busterarm 4y ago
Not a right to violence. A monopoly on violence. This is why self-defense laws are important.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  No, a right, constrained by legitimacy. The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. 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 Press. 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 in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
markoman 4y ago
Its not as if there's a governmental right to spontaneous violence. It's not even a 'right'. It's entwined in the governmental role to enforce laws for the protection of the community and public safety, during which harm may be used to obtain these aims. While this harm is supposed to be used sparingly and judiciously, the human nature of exacting justice can lead to excess and abuse. Unless evidence is presented to the contrary, the enforcing officers are protected with the 'qualified immunity' legal doctrine (aka 'a-few-bad-apples'). Its an unfortunate side effect of a mix of: police culture, training, and popular culture. At least in the George Floyd example, accountability was levied. Corporations act with probably the most impunity of all. They are beneficially and popularly thought of as job providers (until they choose to layoff). When they abuse their function in their yearn for profit, they offer nothing to imprison criminally and can only offer financial compensation -- if they haven't walled off their finances and declared bankruptcy for the guilty self. (Thinking of J&J & the talcum powder case.) In the Purdue Pharma/Sackler case, they paid only what they agreed to pay and many thought they got off easy, since none of Sacklers were even charged criminally. Who has it easier?

Govt has a right to violence. You can't choose to stop using govt without moving yourself. They are an organization specifically to serve people. So they need to be held to higher standards.

busterarm 4y ago

Not a right to violence. A monopoly on violence. This is why self-defense laws are important.

dredmorbius 4y ago
No, a right, constrained by legitimacy. The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself. 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 Press. 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 in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.

markoman 4y ago

Its not as if there's a governmental right to spontaneous violence. It's not even a 'right'. It's entwined in the governmental role to enforce laws for the protection of the community and public safety, during which harm may be used to obtain these aims. While this harm is supposed to be used sparingly and judiciously, the human nature of exacting justice can lead to excess and abuse. Unless evidence is presented to the contrary, the enforcing officers are protected with the 'qualified immunity' legal doctrine (aka 'a-few-bad-apples'). Its an unfortunate side effect of a mix of: police culture, training, and popular culture. At least in the George Floyd example, accountability was levied. Corporations act with probably the most impunity of all. They are beneficially and popularly thought of as job providers (until they choose to layoff). When they abuse their function in their yearn for profit, they offer nothing to imprison criminally and can only offer financial compensation -- if they haven't walled off their finances and declared bankruptcy for the guilty self. (Thinking of J&J & the talcum powder case.) In the Purdue Pharma/Sackler case, they paid only what they agreed to pay and many thought they got off easy, since none of Sacklers were even charged criminally. Who has it easier?