LibriumArcana.Games

The Monopoly on Violence was an idea first spoken about and written about in 1918 by the German Max Max Weber.

The idea is that as a part of state sovereignty, the government holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force expressed through the police or the military and defends it's hold on this by punishing others who use violence. There are of course cavets to this and they can be viewed in the above links.

This idea is expressed differently in each nation, in a certain nation the idea of self defense through violence and of the ownership of violent tools (i.e firearms, knives, swords, etc) is conisidered a fundalmental right. Even then the Government reverses the right to judge if the use of violence was legitimate and to limit the tools in question.

In another nation state a women can be executed for defending herself from rape with violence.

Now the questions, do nations really reserve unto themselves the right to use force within their domains?

Do they deserve such trust, if not them then who should have it?

Should there be limits to this monopoly?

Should free citizens have the right to use force under certain circumstances? Why or Why not?

Alright, as I said in the chat, I'm not that familer with this concept but after reading a few pages on the subject these are my thoughts on them.

First off, the way that Frigid has put it in his opening post, to me at any rate, appears to mean that the monopoly of violence and the monopoly of law-making are completely inextricable. One enforces the other, violence enforcing the right to make law. This leads to what, to me, seems to be a circulatory arguement.

Yes, most nations do reserve the right to monopolize both laws and violence to themselves.

As a citizen, governed by the popular majority, you are more or less working within a predefined accepted system. This accepted system states the given methods of expression, of dissent, etc. To act outside of this system provokes violence. However this isn't designed to protect the monopoly but rather to protect the accepted system. Law-making and deciding what is just and how to enforce these are but a fraction of the duties that these monopolies grant.

Do we trust them with this power, this authority? Yes, but only if the monopoly granted is granted by the consent of the populace. I do not agree with a nation that maintains these powers without being assigned by the majority. It does nothing but lead to abuse of this granted authority. We've seen this time and time again.

However, since a nation doesn't have a lot of times where it can concretely identify its enemies, either internal or external, it needs to reserve the right to limit the ability for potential hostile elements to act within its boarders or against it. Should there be limits to this? Yes, a citizen should be able to defend oneself when the system is incapable of doing it. Should the government punish someone should simply preforming the duty they themselves are elected, but have failed, to do? No. That just undermines its own authority really.

I hope this makes some sense...