[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t believe a state is defined solely by a “monopoly of force”. [/quote]
The monopoly of force Sexmachine is referring to alludes to Max Weber’s definition of a state, which is a “human community [government] which has successfully claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” Key to the above is the concept of legitimacy.[/quote]
Interesting, thanks for the info.
[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]
A monopoly of force logically precedes order. Laws mean nothing absent the force necessary to enforce.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t mind an armed citizenry at all…but I have a problem with that citizenry walking around carrying more Firepower than our Police Forces and our Military.
Why?
“Average Joe” and his like-minded Militia don’t have (IMO) the same “checks and balances” (regardless as to how imperfect those checks and balances may be) as the Local Police department or even the 82nd Airborne across town from me.
[/quote]
They might not have the same checks, but they have about 300 million checks non-the-less if the entirety of the U.S. is armed. [/quote]
…and FOR ME, that is not a comforting thought at all.
(But that’s just me…)
Mufasa
If the populace has the monopoly of force then the state ceases to be a credible threat and therefore it cannot maintain law and order and enforce sanctions. At that stage a power vacuum forms which is filled by men with guns.
[quote]Bismark 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]
A monopoly of force logically precedes order. Laws mean nothing absent the force necessary to enforce.[/quote]
Yes they do. The people hold the force and create laws through representation and order by voluntarily empowering law enforcement. Citizens are checked by other citizens and government is checked by the population as a whole.
Government should be a means only, imo.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If the populace has the monopoly of force then the state ceases to be a credible threat and therefore it cannot maintain law and order and enforce sanctions. At that stage a power vacuum forms which is filled by men with guns.[/quote]
In my scenario the state is a credible threat because she is backed by the people.
Think of it as U.S. currency (state) when it was backed by gold (people). Gold = legitimacy.
I’m just spit balling here by the way. Although I like the way my ideas sound 
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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]
Sorry, I missed this post. In the situation you describe the people are sovereign - ie, the people are the state. And if they voluntarily vest authority in representatives it is entirely conditional upon the representatives carrying out the will of the people. Essentially, it is tantamount to direct democracy:
Because the people’s representatives do not have actual authority - only ostensible due to it being conditional - the people are sovereign. This kind of democracy is extremely dangerous as it leads to ochlocracy(mob rule) which the founders well understood. In the US the people are not supposed to be sovereign - the Constitution is supposed to be sovereign. Republicanism is representative democracy under a sovereign Constitution as opposed to direct democracy under a sovereign people.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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]
Sorry, I missed this post. In the situation you describe the people are sovereign - ie, the people are the state. And if they voluntarily vest authority in representatives it is entirely conditional upon the representatives carrying out the will of the people. Essentially, it is tantamount to direct democracy:
Because the people’s representatives do not have actual authority - only ostensible due to it being conditional - the people are sovereign. This kind of democracy is extremely dangerous as it leads to ochlocracy(mob rule) which the founders well understood. In the US the people are not supposed to be sovereign - the Constitution is supposed to be sovereign. Republicanism is representative democracy under a sovereign Constitution as opposed to direct democracy under a sovereign people.
[/quote]
An excellent post and one that saved me from trudging through Leviathan.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark 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]
A monopoly of force logically precedes order. Laws mean nothing absent the force necessary to enforce.[/quote]
Yes they do. The people hold the force and create laws through representation and order by voluntarily empowering law enforcement. Citizens are checked by other citizens and government is checked by the population as a whole.
Government should be a means only, imo. [/quote]
They are mere abstractions without force giving them coercive, auth
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark 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]
A monopoly of force logically precedes order. Laws mean nothing absent the force necessary to enforce.[/quote]
Yes they do. The people hold the force and create laws through representation and order by voluntarily empowering law enforcement. Citizens are checked by other citizens and government is checked by the population as a whole.
Government should be a means only, imo. [/quote]
They are mere abstractions without force to imbue them with authority and legitimacy. Machiavelli wrote of this over 500 years ago. Ergo, a legitimized monopoly of force must be established before legal statutes can be effectively erected. Otherwise, law is nothing more than words on paper.
Fucked up story from NBC
From my understand, the police had set up a sting operation via a confidential informant (CI), who somehow lured or got involved with some violent home invasion type people. The CI was supposed to stay in the vehicle while the other three invaders broke into the home. Plans changed, and the CI went by the house with the guys, but before he did that he said the code word “Disney Land” or “Disney World” to indicate that something was wrong. He ends up getting shot by the police like 11 times while he was on his stomach. Head of the home invaders is laying by a tree on his stomach, gets shot 52 times. And no one is charged.
One person commented that if a regular citizen would go to jail, then the police shouldn’t be treated any differently.
Also, it was noted that in the past 15 years, there was something like 600 police-related homicides, and not one was found to be unjustified. Kind of strange, but who knows.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Fucked up story from NBC
From my understand, the police had set up a sting operation via a confidential informant (CI), who somehow lured or got involved with some violent home invasion type people. The CI was supposed to stay in the vehicle while the other three invaders broke into the home. Plans changed, and the CI went by the house with the guys, but before he did that he said the code word “Disney Land” or “Disney World” to indicate that something was wrong. He ends up getting shot by the police like 11 times while he was on his stomach. Head of the home invaders is laying by a tree on his stomach, gets shot 52 times. And no one is charged.
One person commented that if a regular citizen would go to jail, then the police shouldn’t be treated any differently.
Also, it was noted that in the past 15 years, there was something like 600 police-related homicides, and not one was found to be unjustified. Kind of strange, but who knows.[/quote]
Huh.
This was the same group who was torturing people during their home invasions, right? Yes, I believe that’s them. There were 11 officers with rifles involved. One suspect pulled a gun on the officers. In a situation like that, it’s easy to end up with a bunch of holes in you.
It was on video. The video was reviewed by the State AG. No evidence of a CRIME was found. I’m sure mistakes and errors were made if you are a nit-picking desk jockey that has never did tactical work, with no life-experience. You can bet they combed over the infrared footage from the chopper that showed the shooting.
And this might sound bad, but if the city settled for $600k for 3 dead, they didn’t have much of a wrongful death case if you follow this stuff. One family got $120k? C’mon…
I’m not privy to all the facts in this case, but typically there is more to the story than just the byline. In short, the suspects that got killed were real shitbags. CI included if you know anything about CIs.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ All in lighthearted fun, Muf.[/quote]
It’s all good, Push!
Naw…no fear of guns!
Mufasa
I thought we already had this whole “militarization of the police” argument.
FTR I’m against any offensive military weapons for law enforcement. I’m all for protection and defensive measures. I don’t want my community to view me as an “offensive-minded” servant. I work for my victims. I work my cases to determine if the law has been broken, and if so, how we can remedy that by protecting the victims and holding the accused accountable so it can never happen again. In some cases, that may mean a lengthy stint in prison. I don’t want the public to be afraid/wary/suspicious of me.
I also don’t have a problem with citizens owning the same firearms I have access to. In fact, if I encounter a citizen who is carrying, my first thought is, “Cool. He’s one of US.” That’s the way I look at it. To qualify, it automatically puts you in a certain class of people with shared values.