Sunday, July 22, 2012

When somebody talks about a 'state monopoly on violence',

they mean they like places like modern Britain, where defending yourself from an attacker can put you in prison. They want the State to have complete control*, including over your life and the protection thereof. Which means "We'll investigate and try to find the murderer after he kills you", which they really don't want us to think about. Etc.
One would presume, then, that a viable state is one which maintains a monopoly on violence.
I’ll pause, here, to let that sink in. *tick*tick*tick*tick*
Yes, it’s appropriate to bring historical examples to bear.
(You won’t need my help for that, unless you’re a Prog or attended a public school.)

Yeah, how's the crime thing doing in those places with a 'monopoly on violence'?(yeah, the article's a couple of years old; don't have time right now to dig around for more recent)

*Because they're planning on themselves and people of like mind being in charge


Luton Ian said...

I'm guessing you'll like this by Robert Higgs (author of "Crisis and the Leviathan")

It is long but well worth listening to.

Transcript over at Mises Daily articles

Sigivald said...

Well, more decent folk use the same terminology to mean a monopoly on the use of coercive force.

Self defense (and defense of property rights) is not coercion and is thus not removed from the place of the individual.

The minimal state of the Nozickian libertarian and the just state of the Conservative both do that, without presuming that they can, let alone should, make self defense illegitimate.