Talk:Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force

message: Perhaps some inclusion of what is meant by legitimate use of force? Right minarchists espouse that if there is to be a State vested with force, then it should be for defensive purposes alone, from clear and present dangers to life and property. When it oversteps its bounds and begins using its force to compel peaceful people to do, or not do, something that does not spring from the notion of protecting life and property, then it has lost its legitimacy. The nulling of legitimacy can arrive from either the right or left paradigms, it results when the State and its cronies and aparatchiki survives for itself and the privileged. Statism is that gross overstepping of bounds of legitimacy that it ceases to be the maintainer of stable society and is a parasite on the productive and peaceful. A Jeffersonian view would hold that a certain level of State is necessary, but that there is imbedded in it a function that will erode legitimacy and eventually require a "revolution" that will reset toward a maximal degree of liberty, and the process begins again. The term "monopoly on legitimate use of force" withoug discussing at all ideas of legitimate makes it a static, and Statist, conception.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.52.194 (talk • contribs) .
----
This is a rant from a particular left-anarchist point of view. 
Editing for NPOV is needed.
----
Though I am a left-anarchist, I have to say this article is biased to the hilt. Can this not go into a discussion of anarchist theory instead? It's a concept that is hardly discussed outside the anarchist milieu. Graft
----
I'll have a stab at NPOV sometime soon - in the meantime I've added a single paragraph which hopefully raises the tone by stating the respectable theoretical grounding.
I don't agree that the concept is only discussed by anarchists - see the failed state article, for example. I believe it to be accepted currency in academic politics that the state has a monopoly on violence. The reason I won't make a major edit right now is that I want to check up on that a bit more. I've seen slightly different interpretations of the concept, which I need to get straight.
In my opinion the POV issue here is that the stuff about proportionality and minimal use of force includes some outright and veiled accusations which, while certainly true in any number of documented cases, are too general to be considered fair NPOV. They should also be stated to be opinion
Onebyone 11:32 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
----
How could a NPOV entry be written under the heading 'Monopoly on violence?' This is simply an incitement to crackerbarrel politics and without genuine content. User:Wetman
----
You have a point. When I'm done, I can easily move it to Monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I think it's reasonable to leave a redirect, though. "Violence" isn't an inherently loaded term, it's just easy to let it go that way.
As for how such an article can be NPOV, watch me ;-)
Onebyone 11:44 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
----
Right, I'd appreciate some comments on (and fixes to) User:onebyone/Notepad. I don't want to overwrite the whole of the existing article without some agreement on what I'm replacing it with, and preferably some copyediting... -- Onebyone 21:02, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: PaV is a book about that subject. There is that difference. I don't think a merger would help here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: I reworked the supporters section to make it more encyclopedia-ey, but didn't have time to pull the quote from Hobbes' Leviathan, marking it instead with a "citation needed" tag.  If someone has more time than me and the inclination, this would be a helpful and fairly easy addition to this article. (If I remember right, an applicable quote should be within the first several pages of Section 2...somewhere around "nasty, brutish and short", I'd think) --BlackAndy 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added an appropriate Hobbes quote. I know it isn't the one you wanted, but I think it gets the point across... Either way, my source is: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html#CHAPTERXVII second paragraph. SJCstudent 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobbes/Leviathan 

message: How about moving this article to "Monopoly on force" since that term comes up most in a Google search?Anarcho-capitalism 04:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "monopoly on force"

message: This article's voice is not just an anarchist one; it seems to be strong-arming its readers into understanding the terms that compose its title exactly as the author sees them. Emma Goldman herself would not have read a normative meaning into "legitimate" as it is used in the above phrase; its use, as should be clear to all most readers, refers to legitimacy as the monopolizing power defines it.
Spuriousgeorge 21:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality issues 

message: This discussion is alien to the Weberian definition of "monopoly on the legitimate use of force", which is different (as it does not imply that only public forces may use violence, but that the state is the source of legitimacy for such violence). These two sections should thus be moved to some more relevant articles (perhaps anarchism, neoliberalism, state or violence). Tazmaniacs 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monopoly on the use of force 

message: The German term Gewalt does not mean force or physical force.  It means both violence and authority.  Other translations of this term are misleading.  Gewaltsmonopol = monopoly on violence or monopoly on authority.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.23.176.71 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gewalt does not mean force 

message: I am a third-time poster to wikipedia and a layperson on this subject. (i am only passingly familiar with the name max weber.)
The text of the bullet point is:
"The actual application of violence is delegated or permitted by the state. Weber's theory is not taken to mean that only the government uses violence, but that the individuals and organisations which can legitimately use violence or adjudicate on its legitimacy are precisely those authorized to do so by the state. So, for example, the law might permit individuals to use violence in defense of self or property - in this case the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the state."
I'm wondering about the last sentence, and, in particular, the last clause in that sentence:
"in this case [self-defense] the ability to use force has been granted by the state, and only by the state".
In the united states, for example, while the use of force in self-defense is legitimized by the state, is it not also legitimized by the majority, perhaps almost the unanimity, of the people?  imagine that you are in a public place and you are attacked (out of the blue).  if you fight back, then yes it might enter your mind that the police, as officers of the state, might eventually intervene and that they, or other officers of the state, may decide that you are or are not guilty of an offense.  but would it not be a more pressing concern what the public opinion would be of your use of force?  has the legitimacy of the use of force been granted "only by the state", or has the culture (the nation rather than the state) legitimized its use?
if the state were not there, would the use of force still be legitimate in self-defense?  what about in other cases of legitimized force (e.g. execution)? Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The real issue is - did Weber actually say this or is this someone's interpretation? read Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines to learn how to edit wiki articles, since it's about quoting reliable sources not expressing own opinions ;-) Carol Moore 01:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 Max Weber's Theory, second bullet pt 

message: I think at least a reference to "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by F. Engels as well as "The State and Revolution" by Lenin MUST be included.
Characteristically Lenin quotes Engels:
"a distinguishing feature is the establishment of a public power which no longer directly coincides with the population organizing itself as an armed force. This special, public power is necessary because a self-acting armed organization of the population has become impossible since the split into classes.... This public power exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but also of material adjuncts, prisons, and institutions of coercion of all kinds, of which gentile [clan] society knew nothing...." 
This shows that the definition of the state as having the "monopoly of legitimate power" is certainly older than Weber's definition
AFloros (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this comment into its own section (It had been merged with previous comment).  I am guessing this matches up with your (AFloros's) original intent.  Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Engels and Lenin

message: As a German-speaker, I can verily say that Gewalt means violence/authority.  Additionally, nowhere in Weber's phrasing does the term 'legitimate' occur.  Such a term would have made him cringe, not because he was anti-state (though certainly, he likely wasn't the biggest fan of the idea), but because he always attempted to analyze socio/cultural phenomona from an objective viewpoint (which would exclude words such as legitimate or illegitimate, as they are inherently subjective determinations).  Finally, The State's monopoly on violence, would never have become an important sociological topic had the idea of legitimacy been included as a necessary factor for explication.
In Weber's words a thing is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order." refers to a state upholding a CLAIM.  Legitimate, here, is nested in a phrase concerning socio-cultural perception and not applicable to his general thesis concerning the states monopoly on violence as an ontological reality apart from judgements of legal or illegal -- in fact by definition, a state cannot do something illegal so long as it makes laws, and the method of law making doesn't matter, as such legitimacy is not really an interesting point except so far as explaining the process of attaining said monopoly (Which is actually discussed in the much better german version of this page, at the very top).
This article should be written to explain, primarily, Max Weber's conception of, exactly as he put it, the State's Monopoly of Violence, and secondarily, to explain modern application and modified conceptions thereof.  It should not be the goal of this article to synthesize and fundamentally alter the truth, to suite a few peoples distastes or bad german translations.
I'm changing the title to conform to the german version of this page 'Gewaltmonopol des Staates'.  I have posted on here twice and waited the first time for around 3 months for a response which was not forthcoming, I will assume that people are then in general agreement.
Talonx138.246.7.148 (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously Flawed Article

message: The idea is that a state is a "monopoly on violence". The states claim is that it has a "legitimate monopoly on violence". These are two seperable things wherein the former represents Weber's basic thesis and the latter represents only a small portion of said thesis (i.e. the states claim). talonx138.246.7.148 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: reason for reversal of redirect