History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?

[JagerIV]

It's a little more sensible to say the government, to be the government, has a monopoly on "legitimate force", or is the "legitimator of force". One may kill a thief, but if the government functions a government judge can determine whether it was a legitimate killing and most people respect that.

But, its more of a descritive term of a functioning sovereign than a state per say. Sort of building on the idea that sovereignty is the ability to determine the exception to the rules.

So, makes sense descritively, less so as a prescritive.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

It's a little more sensible to say the government, to be the government, has a monopoly on "legitimate force", or is the "legitimator of force". One may kill a thief, but if the government functions a government judge can determine whether it was a legitimate killing and most people respect that.

But, its more of a descritive term of a functioning sovereign than a state per say. Sort of building on the idea that sovereignty is the ability to determine the exception to the rules.

So, makes sense descritively, less so as a prescritive.

Yes, but in previous eras this violence legitimization function of 'government' was more widely distributed, down to the heads of major families who had the duty of deciding to back the inter family violence of members of their family and commit to a feud, or pay the wergild and discipline the youthful bloodlust in the name of peace. But all functions of government have been centralized in the name of liberating men from the 'tyranny of the cousins'.

 

[Aldarion]

Yeah, monopoly on force is a fairly nonsensical modern definition that seems to me to be the modern version of China's Mandate of Heaven.

The Mandate of Heaven meant that the Emperor was placed on his throne by the gods themselves and no rebellion could succeed, so if a rebellion did succeed that meant the Emperor had lost the mandate and the new emperor was placed there by heaven.

A nation has a monopoly on force which is part of being a legitimate government. Unless somebody else brings enough force to overthrow the government, in which case suddenly they get the monopoly on force and become the legitimate government. It's very circular.

I can only imagine how, say, medieval people would react to the idea that only the King is allowed to use force. Probably a lot of hysterical laughter at such stupidity.

Except in medieval times, king was only one element of the government, not the government. In fact, kingdom would have a lot of different governments - independent cities, magnates, middle-ranking nobles... all of them were governments in their own right, because they could legally use force and rule certain areas (which also included taxation, legislation, and other elements of the government - all of which stemmed from their authority, which stemmed from force), but were also elements of the kingdom's government as well. Which is the reason why I can only facepalm at people saying that medieval kingdoms were "tyrannical", "authoritharian" and the like. No, they weren't, and they physically could not be such, because central government simply did not have the force - and thus, the authority - to actually implement tyranny. Even under the Byzantines and the Ottomans, local governments had a lot of leeway, nevermind something like Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Except in medieval times, king was only one element of the government, not the government. In fact, kingdom would have a lot of different governments - independent cities, magnates, middle-ranking nobles... all of them were governments in their own right, because they could legally use force and rule certain areas (which also included taxation, legislation, and other elements of the government - all of which stemmed from their authority, which stemmed from force), but were also elements of the kingdom's government as well. Which is the reason why I can only facepalm at people saying that medieval kingdoms were "tyrannical", "authoritharian" and the like. No, they weren't, and they physically could not be such, because central government simply did not have the force - and thus, the authority - to actually implement tyranny. Even under the Byzantines and the Ottomans, local governments had a lot of leeway, nevermind something like Holy Roman Empire.

Yes, I've seen the arguments many times. The problem is that by the time you make that argument, you've established that just about the entire population is part of the government since the retinue of retinues tends to trickle all the way down to the mayor of Nowheresville: population 12 humans and 400 sheep, and somehow he and the villagers, who are armed to protect the sheep from wolves and bandits, are all part of the government so their force is "legitimate." Because the theory requires the circular argument that anybody using force must be legitimate government, so therefore because these people are using force they are legitimately part of the government.

Basically once you look at it closely, and see just how many "no, they're part of the government" arguments have to be thrown at any given situation, you wind up with "Monopoly on Force" looking a heck of a lot like "Crime is Illegal" and people with their heads up their own rectums pretending it's a profound statement and important part of political theory instead of an extreme "You Don't Say" moment.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Because the theory requires the circular argument that anybody using force must be legitimate government, so therefore because these people are using force they are legitimately part of the government.

Except non legitimate uses of force are still illegitimate, see bandits. What legitimates the village of Nowheresville in the use of force is that the village has an overlord, who has an overlord, all the way up to the sovereign prince and through him, the Body of Christ, the Vicar of Christ, and ultimately, God.

We still recognize this today; what is the difference between irregular combatants and illegal combatants (spies and saboteurs)? A clear chain of command responsible for their actions and some attempt at uniform signification of membership.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Except non legitimate uses of force are still illegitimate, see bandits. What legitimates the village of Nowheresville in the use of force is that the village has an overlord, who has an overlord, all the way up to the sovereign prince and through him, the Body of Christ, the Vicar of Christ, and ultimately, God.

We still recognize this today; what is the difference between irregular combatants and illegal combatants (spies and saboteurs)? A clear chain of command responsible for their actions and some attempt at uniform signification of membership.

Yes, but if the bandits take over, they suddenly become legitimate and their force retroactively was legitimate all along, hence the issue that the entire concept is circular. It amounts to "crime is illegal" with the extra caveat "unless you get away with it, then it wasn't ever crime in the first place."

 

[Doomsought]

The problem with the monopoly of force definition is that a government can still be legitimate if it gives up a monopoly of force by legalizing self defense, hiring mercenaries or even permitting an armed militia.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Yes, but if the bandits take over, they suddenly become legitimate and their force retroactively was legitimate all along, hence the issue that the entire concept is circular. It amounts to "crime is illegal" with the extra caveat "unless you get away with it, then it wasn't ever crime in the first place."

Shrug. God defends the Right. If the Bandits win and pay their dues to get made, it is now in the interest of the general Peace and Truce of God to forgive what is now the past. Someone must rule, but God is no respecter of persons, there's no particular reason why it has to be *you*.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The problem with the monopoly of force definition is that a government can still be legitimate if it gives up a monopoly of force by legalizing self defense, hiring mercenaries or even permitting an armed militia.

Naw, see their reasoning ins that in this case, legalizing self defense just means that the said force has become legitimate. Everybody in the world who isn't being pursued as a criminal is part of the government in some way so their force is legal. It's very circular, again, any force that succeeds is automatically legitimate force and any force that doesn't was never legitimate to start with.

Shrug. God defends the Right. If the Bandits win and pay their dues to get made, it is now in the interest of the general Peace and Truce of God to forgive what is now the past. Someone must rule, but God is no respecter of persons, there's no particular reason why it has to be *you*.

So we go back to the Mandate of Heaven, where the gods put the Emperor on his Throne and any rebellion or disrespect is blasphemy against the heavens, unless, that is, you succeed in which case clearly the gods meant for you to be the Emperor all along and the Mandate of Heaven was really with you and the blasphemy was the previous Emperor standing against your clearly righteous right to rule, until the next guy comes along.

The fact that this is considered an important part of modern political theory is astounding.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

So we go back to the Mandate of Heaven, where the gods put the Emperor on his Throne and any rebellion or disrespect is blasphemy against the heavens, unless, that is, you succeed in which case clearly the gods meant for you to be the Emperor all along and the Mandate of Heaven was really with you and the blasphemy was the previous Emperor standing against your clearly righteous right to rule, until the next guy comes along.

The fact that this is considered an important part of modern political theory is astounding.

Temporal rule is a Sword. Always has been. Always will be. There is no alternative.

 

[JagerIV]

Yes, but in previous eras this violence legitimization function of 'government' was more widely distributed, down to the heads of major families who had the duty of deciding to back the inter family violence of members of their family and commit to a feud, or pay the wergild and discipline the youthful bloodlust in the name of peace. But all functions of government have been centralized in the name of liberating men from the 'tyranny of the cousins'.

Eh, yes and no. I could if my son killed someone say it was a legitimate killing. My word would simply have virtually no wieght. A judge has more weight to say so.

Unless a higher judge said so. I'm pretty sure even in the loosest feudal hierarchy the king was more or less final arbiter of things. More private violence being seen as legitimate is different from the king not still having final say.

Like, to use the bandit example, it's important that Robin Hood in the end gets accepted by the king once he returns. That's a proof he was in the end in the right between him and the sheriff.

Keeping the ability to make such pronouncements with moral weight is obviously extremely valuable to a state, and is a sign of strong rule.

But, as the descriptor of a state its a little like describing a state as a money printing organization. It's certainly something states try to do, not sure if its core of what a state is.

Then again, describing a state as the various things do is a potentially valid explanation, depending on what your trying to do.

I've never read the original work that the monopoly on violence comes from, so I don't really know how and to what purpose that definition was used

 

[Bear Ribs]

Eh, yes and no. I could if my son killed someone say it was a legitimate killing. My word would simply have virtually no wieght. A judge has more weight to say so.

Unless a higher judge said so. I'm pretty sure even in the loosest feudal hierarchy the king was more or less final arbiter of things. More private violence being seen as legitimate is different from the king not still having final say.

Like, to use the bandit example, it's important that Robin Hood in the end gets accepted by the king once he returns. That's a proof he was in the end in the right between him and the sheriff.

That's... not present at all in a supermajority of Robin Hood stories. It's certainly not an important element of his legend. You might as well claim that having a token Muslim is important to Robin Hood when in reality it was a brief fad in the late 80s and early 90s that vanished after.

Keeping the ability to make such pronouncements with moral weight is obviously extremely valuable to a state, and is a sign of strong rule.

But, as the descriptor of a state its a little like describing a state as a money printing organization. It's certainly something states try to do, not sure if its core of what a state is.

Then again, describing a state as the various things do is a potentially valid explanation, depending on what your trying to do.

I've never read the original work that the monopoly on violence comes from, so I don't really know how and to what purpose that definition was used

The modern definition comes from the writings of Max Weber, especially his essay Politics as a Vocation in 1919, though the idea had been floated around before that. He was of the opinion that, literally, the only defining trait of a government was that it claimed a defined territory and successfully enforced a monopoly on force in that territory. Nothing else mattered in establishing government save that the government claimed a monopoly on force that nobody else had broken yet.

 

[Aldarion]

Yes, I've seen the arguments many times. The problem is that by the time you make that argument, you've established that just about the entire population is part of the government since the retinue of retinues tends to trickle all the way down to the mayor of Nowheresville: population 12 humans and 400 sheep, and somehow he and the villagers, who are armed to protect the sheep from wolves and bandits, are all part of the government so their force is "legitimate." Because the theory requires the circular argument that anybody using force must be legitimate government, so therefore because these people are using force they are legitimately part of the government.

Basically once you look at it closely, and see just how many "no, they're part of the government" arguments have to be thrown at any given situation, you wind up with "Monopoly on Force" looking a heck of a lot like "Crime is Illegal" and people with their heads up their own rectums pretending it's a profound statement and important part of political theory instead of an extreme "You Don't Say" moment.

Which is better than - often unelected - bureocrats with heads up their asses making laws for the heck of it. And it is not a circular argument: government is based on a) use of force and b) community. If a community organizes to use force, then it is, essentially, a government and therefore legitimate.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Which is better than - often unelected - bureocrats with heads up their asses making laws for the heck of it. And it is not a circular argument: government is based on a) use of force and b) community. If a community organizes to use force, then it is, essentially, a government and therefore legitimate.

Community is not part of the definition of legitimate force. If everybody in the community is wearing a steel collar and chains as slaves to Lord Asshat of the Evil Empire of Asshatness, that's still legitimate force according to the theory. If community was actually included I'd be more charitable to the theory.

It's circular because government is identified by legitimate force and legitimate force is identified by government.

How do you know force was legitimate? It was authorized by the government.
How do you recognize the government? They are allowed to authorize legitimate force.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Community is not part of the definition of legitimate force. If everybody in the community is wearing a steel collar and chains as slaves to Lord Asshat of the Evil Empire of Asshatness, that's still legitimate force according to the theory. If community was actually included I'd be more charitable to the theory.

Legitimate to whom? Forget the 'monopoly' theory for a moment, a command is legitimate when it is obeyed without the application of coercion. A ruler is legitimate when he commands in this way.

 

[Aldarion]

Community is not part of the definition of legitimate force. If everybody in the community is wearing a steel collar and chains as slaves to Lord Asshat of the Evil Empire of Asshatness, that's still legitimate force according to the theory. If community was actually included I'd be more charitable to the theory.

It's circular because government is identified by legitimate force and legitimate force is identified by government.

How do you know force was legitimate? It was authorized by the government.
How do you recognize the government? They are allowed to authorize legitimate force.

I don't care about established theories, what I care about is what I observed from history. Which comes down to: government is based on use of force. A government is legitimate when it has the a) authority to regulate the society by making rules and b) enforce said rules in practice. So authority + power. Authority is given by the community and tradition, while power is given by capacity for organized violence. An effective government has both. If we have authority without power, then we have a hollow government; if we have power without authority, we have illegitimate government (tyranny in modern parlance).

 

[Bear Ribs]

Legitimate to whom? Forget the 'monopoly' theory for a moment, a command is legitimate when it is obeyed without the application of coercion. A ruler is legitimate when he commands in this way.

Yeah, that's kinda my beef with it, the use of the word "legitimate" and the self-reference to government being defined by using legitimate force and legitimate force being defined as used by the government.

I don't care about established theories, what I care about is what I observed from history. Which comes down to: government is based on use of force. A government is legitimate when it has the a) authority to regulate the society by making rules and b) enforce said rules in practice. So authority + power. Authority is given by the community and tradition, while power is given by capacity for organized violence. An effective government has both. If we have authority without power, then we have a hollow government; if we have power without authority, we have illegitimate government (tyranny in modern parlance).

That's a much better system that the theory of Legitimate Force we've been discussing.

Coincidentally Max Weber was also a huge fan of massive bureaucracy, his theory on legitimate force was in part to back up his theory of bureaucracy, specifically that power came from three sources, charismatic (he tied this to families and churches), traditional (feudalism and patriarchy), and legalistic (Bureaucracy). He was a huge fan of the bureaucracy side and felt that an ideal society should be stratified, rigidly defined by labor types via bureaucracy, and all ability to make decisions or wield power restricted by bureaucratic regulation.

 

[Doomsought]

you are talking about two different concepts, force is used to establish the existence of a government.
legitimacy is the moral judgement that a government should continue to exist.

Actually, I don't think it can be reduced further than that.

 

[Abhishekm]

Yes, but if the bandits take over, they suddenly become legitimate and their force retroactively was legitimate all along, hence the issue that the entire concept is circular. It amounts to "crime is illegal" with the extra caveat "unless you get away with it, then it wasn't ever crime in the first place."

This is news? 👹

you are talking about two different concepts, force is used to establish the existence of a government.
legitimacy is the moral judgement that a government should continue to exist.

You can break down the moral judgement bit to a sufficient standing among a fractionally significant portion of the population. Specifically enough that pushing for change isn't worth the trouble or atleast not possible with just those willing.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Would it not be asier to say that the guy with the biggest gun & kill count wins? that seems to be what this is boiling down to.