Difference between revisions of "Myths/government has a monopoly on force"
(beginnings of a rebuttal) |
m (meta tweaks) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | [[category:government]] |
| − | + | {{page/status/seed|This is just a trivia linkdrop at the moment.}} | |
==Reality== | ==Reality== | ||
Government ''should'' have a monopoly on violence (above a certain level, at least); the absence of such implies a violent society. "Monopoly on force" is just another way of saying "preventing violence, using violence if necessary". | Government ''should'' have a monopoly on violence (above a certain level, at least); the absence of such implies a violent society. "Monopoly on force" is just another way of saying "preventing violence, using violence if necessary". | ||
Latest revision as of 22:30, 11 June 2015
| seed article |
|---|
| This article is under construction and should not be used as a reference. This is just a trivia linkdrop at the moment. |
Reality
Government should have a monopoly on violence (above a certain level, at least); the absence of such implies a violent society. "Monopoly on force" is just another way of saying "preventing violence, using violence if necessary".
Trivia
Even in communist (the worst kind of statism) China, violence is openly available for hire -- https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/04/22/chinese-mobile-app-used-for-hiring-thugs-to-beat-up-people/ -- although this probably doesn't argue against the "monopoly on force" claim, since the Chinese government no doubt opposes the app and would probably have taken action against it if the Google Store hadn't already removed it.
On the other hand, if this is an anti-governmentist argument that the government should not have a "monopoly on force" (whatever that may mean), then it has to be asked what, in a stateless society, would stop the largest "private" security company in any given area from claiming their own "monopoly on force".