State's Monopoly on Violence
This cluster centers on discussions of the state's or government's monopoly on violence, a concept from political philosophy often attributed to Max Weber, contrasting it with private entities like corporations and debating its implications for power and legitimacy.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Might want to educate yourself on what it means for a state to monopolies violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Right, because the State is the entity with a Monopoly on Violencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Because the government has a monopoly on violence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Not disagreeing with the meat of your post, but could you say a little bit more about the state not having a monopoly on violence? From what I understand this term is used to explain that the government is the only one who is legally allowed to use violence against other individuals, and is the only one who can grant you that power. And as far as I can tell that IS the case. Thoughts?
Parent comment used “monopoly on violence” correctly: the government can physically show up to your house and forcibly imprison you or even kill you if you resist hard enough. No one else can (legally).
Government has a monopoly on violence without consequence.
Government is literally defined by a monopoly on violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
It’s the government that holds the monopoly on violence, not the police.
government is essentially a monopoly on violence.
That’s the “monopoly on violence“. The government isn’t equal. They hold the monopoly on violence, until they get so far out of line that the people take it back. The only open question is how to prevent that from happening.