[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t know the numbers either. But armed rebellions were successfully put down - Shays, Whiskey, Fries’s.[/quote]
Yes, but not every armed citizen was involved in those rebellions, right?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t see how. The state did not exist because it did not hold the monopoly of force. Once it gained the monopoly of force it came into existence. Prior to that the monopoly of force was held by the individual states/colonies.[/quote]
You say it didn’t exist prior to its monopoly of force. I and billions of others say it did. We are really just dancing around the semantics.
The United States of America was indeed a state on July 3, 1863 but the idea that it doesn’t fit your particular definition on that date so therefore it ceases to be a state is ludicrous.
[/quote]
The point is someone has to hold or be perceived to hold the monopoly of force. Before the feds it was the states; before the states the British/French/Spaniards/Indians etc.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t know the numbers either. But armed rebellions were successfully put down - Shays, Whiskey, Fries’s.[/quote]
Yes, but not every armed citizen was involved in those rebellions, right? [/quote]
There is never a conflict where every armed citizen is involved. But the challenging of sovereignty by the rebels and their subsequent defeat essentially enshrines the sovereignty of the state. If the state puts down any internal threats that arise or by its mere presence deters them from starting then the state holds the monopoly of force.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t see how. The state did not exist because it did not hold the monopoly of force. Once it gained the monopoly of force it came into existence. Prior to that the monopoly of force was held by the individual states/colonies.[/quote]
You say it didn’t exist prior to its monopoly of force. I and billions of others say it did. We are really just dancing around the semantics.
The United States of America was indeed a state on July 3, 1863 but the idea that it doesn’t fit your particular definition on that date so therefore it ceases to be a state is ludicrous.
[/quote]
The point is someone has to hold or be perceived to hold the monopoly of force. Before the feds it was the states; before the states the British/French/Spaniards/Indians etc.[/quote]
The people of the U.S. are supposed to hold the monopoly of force while allowing the government, as an extension of the people, to administer law and order agreed upon via representation.
That’s what I meant by a military coup.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t see how. The state did not exist because it did not hold the monopoly of force. Once it gained the monopoly of force it came into existence. Prior to that the monopoly of force was held by the individual states/colonies.[/quote]
You say it didn’t exist prior to its monopoly of force. I and billions of others say it did. We are really just dancing around the semantics.
The United States of America was indeed a state on July 3, 1863 but the idea that it doesn’t fit your particular definition on that date so therefore it ceases to be a state is ludicrous.
[/quote]
The point is someone has to hold or be perceived to hold the monopoly of force. Before the feds it was the states; before the states the British/French/Spaniards/Indians etc.[/quote]
The people of the U.S. are supposed to hold the monopoly of force while allowing the government, as an extension of the people, to administer law and order agreed upon via representation. [/quote]
I agree they’re supposed to…theoretically…
I said:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You don’t think in the late 1700s individuals in total weren’t more heavily armed than their state/colony? I don’t know the numbers, but common sense would say they were.
[/quote]
You responded with:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t know the numbers either. But armed rebellions were successfully put down - Shays, Whiskey, Fries’s.[/quote]
To which I responded:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, but not every armed citizen was involved in those rebellions, right? [/quote]
How does your next post:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
There is never a conflict where every armed citizen is involved. But the challenging of sovereignty by the rebels and their subsequent defeat essentially enshrines the sovereignty of the state. If the state puts down any internal threats that arise or by its mere presence deters them from starting then the state holds the monopoly of force.[/quote]
Address this?
My point is, in the late 1700s, states/colonies may very well have been “out gunned” yet states still existed. You are saying they held a monopoly of force because a number of rebellions were successfully put down, but those rebellions did not involve all armed citizens. So the question still is, why can’t a state exist if the populace in total has more guns (ie a monopoly of force) over the state?
I say it can through voluntary means.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t see how. The state did not exist because it did not hold the monopoly of force. Once it gained the monopoly of force it came into existence. Prior to that the monopoly of force was held by the individual states/colonies.[/quote]
You say it didn’t exist prior to its monopoly of force. I and billions of others say it did. We are really just dancing around the semantics.
The United States of America was indeed a state on July 3, 1863 but the idea that it doesn’t fit your particular definition on that date so therefore it ceases to be a state is ludicrous.
[/quote]
The point is someone has to hold or be perceived to hold the monopoly of force. Before the feds it was the states; before the states the British/French/Spaniards/Indians etc.[/quote]
The people of the U.S. are supposed to hold the monopoly of force while allowing the government, as an extension of the people, to administer law and order agreed upon via representation. [/quote]
I agree they’re supposed to…theoretically…[/quote]
So “in theory” you’re saying the United States or any state should not exist?
I’m having trouble following your line of reasoning here.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well, first…have you decided there is no difference between the character of the average Middle Easterner in the areas you are thinking of and the average American?[/quote]
Define average American.[/quote]
An Obama voter, as he got a little over 50% of the vote.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That’s what I meant by a military coup.[/quote]
Unless a military coup was orchestrated by the DOD there could easily still be a number of conventional forces vying for power. Heck even if the DOD was behind the coup each branch could go their own way.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That’s what I meant by a military coup.[/quote]
Unless a military coup was orchestrated by the DOD there could easily still be a number of conventional forces vying for power. Heck even if the DOD was behind the coup each branch could go their own way. [/quote]
Yes, I know. That’s exactly what I was talking about. “Coup” was the wrong word. Sorry for the confusion.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That’s what I meant by a military coup.[/quote]
Unless a military coup was orchestrated by the DOD there could easily still be a number of conventional forces vying for power. Heck even if the DOD was behind the coup each branch could go their own way. [/quote]
Yes, I know. That’s exactly what I was talking about. “Coup” was the wrong word. Sorry for the confusion.[/quote]
No worries. It’s an interesting topic.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Cops do not need tanks. Cops should not have tanks.
[/quote]
Cops don’t have tanks. For something to be considered a tank, it requires a mounted cannon. The vehicles you see are simply armored personnel carriers. What problem do you have with police transporting their members and citizens in a bullet resistant vehicle? Do you have a problem with members of the public owning tanks? Arnie has a tank. Do you believe he needs it more or less than a police department?[/quote]
What difference does it make whether he “needs” it or not?
Are we a nation of subjects that must submit our list of needs to our sovereign and beg him/it to grant it? WTF? Maybe that’s how you Canadians view things but Americans are cut from a different bolt of cloth.
[/quote]
So you’re opposed to the police having an armored vehicle, but anyone else can have one?
For the record, I couldn’t care less if Arnie has a tank. I think the police should be able to have one if their budget allows for it. Seeing as how these vehicles are usually donated, I don’t see what the problem is.
Also, here in Canada, armored vehicles are donated to police services and radicals from both ends of the spectrum oppose it with the sweeping majority not giving a fuck about because there are more important things to be thinking about.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t see how. The state did not exist because it did not hold the monopoly of force. Once it gained the monopoly of force it came into existence. Prior to that the monopoly of force was held by the individual states/colonies.[/quote]
You say it didn’t exist prior to its monopoly of force. I and billions of others say it did. We are really just dancing around the semantics.
The United States of America was indeed a state on July 3, 1863 but the idea that it doesn’t fit your particular definition on that date so therefore it ceases to be a state is ludicrous.
[/quote]
The point is someone has to hold or be perceived to hold the monopoly of force. Before the feds it was the states; before the states the British/French/Spaniards/Indians etc.[/quote]
The people of the U.S. are supposed to hold the monopoly of force while allowing the government, as an extension of the people, to administer law and order agreed upon via representation. [/quote]
I agree they’re supposed to…theoretically…[/quote]
So “in theory” you’re saying the United States or any state should not exist?
I’m having trouble following your line of reasoning here. [/quote]
No, I’m just saying that the citizens don’t hold the monopoly of force and if they were to hold the monopoly of force then the state would be in peril. Look at Rome. Who held the monopoly of force during the late Republic? The legions. The legions were the state. That’s how Sulla, Pompey, Caesar etc gained power. They didn’t actually need to use force. The mere fact that they commanded the legions and the legions were loyal to them transferred the state from the Senate to them.