3 ms·

Here's an article about the evils governments do, while free markets are defined by the absence of government intervention. As Obama explained, government is de

Here's an article about the evils governments do, while free markets are defined by the absence of government intervention. As Obama explained, government is defined by its legal monopoly on the use of violent force. It follows that with every regulation carries an underlying threat of violence, so it seems clear peace won't come from more regulation.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Obama might have mentioned that but he didn’t at all create it. Definitely not to any amount he should be contributed with it. I remember the first place I heard it was a military general… but we might as well attribute Mark Twain.
- hither_shores 4y ago
  It's from Weber. Here's the relevant paragraph of Politics as a Vocation: > 'Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy,' in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state--nobody says that--but force is a means specific to the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the most varied institutions--beginning with the sib--have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
danaris 4y ago
This is a very binary view of "peace" (and "violence"). There's a meaningful difference between a society that allows and supports a government that has a law enforcement body of some sort, and an active armed conflict.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

Obama might have mentioned that but he didn’t at all create it. Definitely not to any amount he should be contributed with it. I remember the first place I heard it was a military general… but we might as well attribute Mark Twain.

hither_shores 4y ago
It's from Weber. Here's the relevant paragraph of Politics as a Vocation: > 'Every state is founded on force,' said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy,' in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state--nobody says that--but force is a means specific to the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the most varied institutions--beginning with the sib--have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.

danaris 4y ago

This is a very binary view of "peace" (and "violence"). There's a meaningful difference between a society that allows and supports a government that has a law enforcement body of some sort, and an active armed conflict.