4 ms·

I know it’s not new, thus why I said I’ve never seen a definition that is both true and useful. In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many

I know it’s not new, thus why I said I’ve never seen a definition that is both true and useful. In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc.

iamnothere 14d ago
Not to mention the increasing use of private security and even private police, and the increasing use of military PMCs and privately owned/controlled “kill chain” components like Palantir and Starlink/Starshield.
embedding-shape 14d ago
> In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. Yes, and you can do so, because the government and state says it's OK to do so. If they didn't, it wouldn't. This is the core idea. > In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc. Hence the whole "sole arbiter of" and last paragraph in my last comment. All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK.
- r3trohack3r 14d ago
  If you define the entity as “all institutions that are allowed to create and enforce laws” and then say “that entity has a monopoly on creating and enforcing laws” you’ve created a tautology. There are clear counter examples to your statement in the U.S. States are not “allowed” to use violence because the Federal government says it’s okay. States have a right to create and enforce laws.
- CamperBob2 14d ago
  All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK. I don't know if you're in the US, but that's simply not how our Constitution works. "Monopoly on violence" is just something some people made up. It's meaningless, just some empty words on paper. (Which is also true for the Constitution itself, of course. But if you're talking about the theoretical and philosophical basis for lawmaking in the US, that's what determines both. Theoretically.)
  - iamnothere 14d ago
    It’s funny because the whole notion of a monopoly on violence is very traditional and tightly coupled to the Westphalian notion of statehood, yet I often see that the first people to cite the monopoly on violence are also the ones undermining the Westphalian state model. In any case all the old gods are dead or dying, including old ideas of statehood, so enjoy the ride, everyone.

iamnothere 14d ago

Not to mention the increasing use of private security and even private police, and the increasing use of military PMCs and privately owned/controlled “kill chain” components like Palantir and Starlink/Starshield.

embedding-shape 14d ago

> In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully. Yes, and you can do so, because the government and state says it's OK to do so. If they didn't, it wouldn't. This is the core idea. > In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc. Hence the whole "sole arbiter of" and last paragraph in my last comment. All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK.

r3trohack3r 14d ago
If you define the entity as “all institutions that are allowed to create and enforce laws” and then say “that entity has a monopoly on creating and enforcing laws” you’ve created a tautology. There are clear counter examples to your statement in the U.S. States are not “allowed” to use violence because the Federal government says it’s okay. States have a right to create and enforce laws.
CamperBob2 14d ago
All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK. I don't know if you're in the US, but that's simply not how our Constitution works. "Monopoly on violence" is just something some people made up. It's meaningless, just some empty words on paper. (Which is also true for the Constitution itself, of course. But if you're talking about the theoretical and philosophical basis for lawmaking in the US, that's what determines both. Theoretically.)
- iamnothere 14d ago
  It’s funny because the whole notion of a monopoly on violence is very traditional and tightly coupled to the Westphalian notion of statehood, yet I often see that the first people to cite the monopoly on violence are also the ones undermining the Westphalian state model. In any case all the old gods are dead or dying, including old ideas of statehood, so enjoy the ride, everyone.