2 ms·

Who kills more citizens: govt or other citizens? No, the "govt has a monopoly on violence" is repeated by the same people that don't read the entirety of links

Who kills more citizens: govt or other citizens? No, the "govt has a monopoly on violence" is repeated by the same people that don't read the entirety of links they post, and who use the word "literally" when it is not literally. https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+government https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+government The word "violence" appears in zero actual definitions of government among the first 200 on google (at which point I stopped searching). Weber's popular phrase has been vastly superseded by political philosophy in the century following his phrase. Read more.

krapp 4y ago
>No, the "govt has a monopoly on violence" is repeated by the same people that don't read the entirety of links they post, and who use the word "literally" when it is not literally. Oh, you're one of those people. Rather than giving a substantive response, you're going to dismiss me because I used the word "literally" in a way not to your liking, despite the fact that the usage of "literally" to mean "figuratively" has been common in English idiomatic practice since at least the 1700s. And as far as the monopoly on violence goes, by all means, if you're going to go through the effort to condescend to me, enlighten me as well.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  >Rather than giving a substantive response Yes, I am aware of the history of literally. I am also aware that when you want to have a "substantive" response, then using hyperbole and claiming things have a definition that simply is not true is no way to have such responses. If you read your link, including criticism, and realized that the phrase you hang your hat on is not at all where the field that coined it has evolved to over the past 100 years, you'd understand why arguing for antiquated ideas doesn't hold up well. I find when someone clearly does not care to absorb new facts, and they jump to catch phrases and hyperbole, they don't care to learn, and often taunting them gets them mad enough to learn something, when simply presenting the ideas will not suffice. You fall into that camp. If you want to present Weber's phrase as "literally the definition" of anything, spend some time reading criticisms and Weber's ideas and the evolution of mankind's thought on the topic.
yunwal 4y ago
And yet, if I go and shoot someone I get arrested, but if an executioner does, they’re not. Weird, I wonder why that is. You’re absolutely avoiding the substance of the argument using the semantics of what the guy said, instead of addressing the point that the government decides who can and cannot commit violence and who is and is not subject to violence.

krapp 4y ago

>No, the "govt has a monopoly on violence" is repeated by the same people that don't read the entirety of links they post, and who use the word "literally" when it is not literally. Oh, you're one of those people. Rather than giving a substantive response, you're going to dismiss me because I used the word "literally" in a way not to your liking, despite the fact that the usage of "literally" to mean "figuratively" has been common in English idiomatic practice since at least the 1700s. And as far as the monopoly on violence goes, by all means, if you're going to go through the effort to condescend to me, enlighten me as well.

SideQuark 4y ago
>Rather than giving a substantive response Yes, I am aware of the history of literally. I am also aware that when you want to have a "substantive" response, then using hyperbole and claiming things have a definition that simply is not true is no way to have such responses. If you read your link, including criticism, and realized that the phrase you hang your hat on is not at all where the field that coined it has evolved to over the past 100 years, you'd understand why arguing for antiquated ideas doesn't hold up well. I find when someone clearly does not care to absorb new facts, and they jump to catch phrases and hyperbole, they don't care to learn, and often taunting them gets them mad enough to learn something, when simply presenting the ideas will not suffice. You fall into that camp. If you want to present Weber's phrase as "literally the definition" of anything, spend some time reading criticisms and Weber's ideas and the evolution of mankind's thought on the topic.

yunwal 4y ago

And yet, if I go and shoot someone I get arrested, but if an executioner does, they’re not. Weird, I wonder why that is. You’re absolutely avoiding the substance of the argument using the semantics of what the guy said, instead of addressing the point that the government decides who can and cannot commit violence and who is and is not subject to violence.