The Monopoly of Violence

T

tatera

New member
I read an article - The Game of Monopoly that discussed the nature of a state requiring a monopoly on legitimate violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-game-of-monopoly_b_99793.html

The point of the article was that DC v Heller poses a threat to this necessary monopoly because any regulation on arms could be deemed unconsitutional. The article suggests that such an arrangement essentially turns the constitution into a suicide pact and that the SCOTUS should rebuke the lower court for offering insurection as a legitimate reason to protect firearm ownership.

Although I think there are logical rebuttals to this position, it was a refreshing departure from the "emotional appeal" approach used by most gun control advocates and I'd like to hear this group's feedback on it.
 
That's a pretty thin justification to claim that the Second Amendment doesn't say what it says. It would basically require interpreting it as an individual right, granting that the founders intended for the people to be able to overthrow the government if it becomes oppressive, and then maintain that you won't uphold the RKBA because you might want to oppress the people.

That's a remarkably cynical view, and not one I'd anticipate a public figure to admit to.

It would make more sense to say "yes, it may well be a suicide pact, so we heartily recommend that the legislative and executive branches avoid oppressing the people to the point where they enter the 'shoot the bastards' stage." Many things in the Constitution could be seen as a tremendous blow to the state's monopoly on anything- that is part and parcel of the whole idea of a government of, by, and for the people. The moment you elevate the interests of the state over the interests of the people, you have opened the door to tyranny, even if only on the installment plan.

You could just as easily argue that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, so cruel and unusual methods as well as suspending basic rights of the accused are perfectly legitimate is the danger lurking around the corner is dangerous enough.

My take is that yes indeed, insurrection against tyranny is a legitimate purpose for the ownership of arms. This is not a concern so long as government officials obey the results of elections, but other nations have seen leaders throw out clear results and dissolve representative bodies just because they couldn't get their way.

I worry when people say "you shouldn't have guns because you might not like what we'll do to you." It makes me think they've got plans that they know full well that people would be driven to rebellion.
 
I agree with everything you said and you gave me some powerful and well articulated thoughts on this subject that have never occured to me before.

But this only puts one aspect of the article on proper perspective. The other aspect was - what do we do with the Timoth McVeighs, who in their opinion have committed a legitimate act of violence in the commission of insurrection? Of course a bomb isn't analogous to a firearm but the thought that a group could take exception with one governing body or another and act out with violence to redress their grievences.

At what level or threshold must we say these actions are fulfilling the Second Amendment's purpose and not simply a terrist activity? My gut tells me there is an answer to that question.

Thanks for adding the thoughtful response. It added clarity to this topic.
 
I have never bought the "Monopoly of Violence" paradigm. It's always been a pathway to tyranny and democide. The founders decried a state monopoly on violence, the standing army, in favor of citizen centered force distributed among the people. As long as the state has a lawful claim to power, the people will support it and rally to it, and dispel its enemies. The McVeigh argument is a red herring. Out of his own little conspiracy, there were very few who saw McVeigh as other than a madman and terrorist. How would the a pro-rights decision in Heller turn a mad bombing into something Constitutionally protected. It wouldn't, it's a diversion meant to mislead and to be used on those too weak on logic to see through it. Sheer nonsense. It would be just as valid to say that an anti-rights decision, enshrining the "Monopoly of Violence" paradigm, legitimizes Hitler and Stalin and other state sponsored mass murderers.
 
Wikipedia says of Max Weber (the guy who came up with the "Monopoly of Violence" theory):
"He was not a liberal in the American sense. He was not even, strictly speaking, a democrat in the sense that the French, the English, or the Americans gave the term. He placed the glory of the nation and the power of the state above all else."

--SNIP--

Weber had been an extreme nationalist, and in his early career had called "in almost violent language for a hard-headed policy of imperialist expansionism."[7] His sociological idea of charismatic authority was evident in his political views, and "appeared to be disturbingly close to fascist notions of plebiscitary leadership."[8] Even his theory of "leader-democracy" seemed flawed, as it "lent itself all too readily to an authoritarian reinterpretation"[9]

"...one will have to admit in all honesty that Weber's teachings concerning charismatic leadership domination coupled with the radical formulation of the meaning of democratic institutions, have contributed their share to making the German people inwardly ready to acclaim the leadership position of Adolf Hitler."
Click to expand...

Josh Horwitz says:
we should consider what maintaining the capability to resist the decisions ofa democratically accountable government really means.
Click to expand...
So what are we supposed to do when we have a government which is not "democratically accountable?" America is not a democracy (republic), and the concept of accountability from our "leaders" is quaint even in these civilly peaceful times, government accountability is off the table, replaced by largely above-the-law elitists who operate with extreme secrecy in even trivial matters.

Josh goes on to say:
and gun regulation is viewed as a plot to monitor gun ownership and, ultimately, to confiscate all private firearms.
Click to expand...
And does not go on to deny it, because it's actually a well-advertised plank in the anti's platform.

Future Timothy McVeighs could claim constitutional protection for their crimes. If every American armed up to vindicate their private grievances (the Court of Appeals gave absolutely no guidance on how to tell, or who should decide, what constitutes government "tyranny"), the government's monopoly on force would be infringed and our society would gradually slide toward anarchy.
Click to expand...
Pure FUD. Josh is suggesting that citizens will take up arms and declare private and civil wars to solve all disagreements great and small. Declaring war on your government or even neighbors is no minor matter and includes the likelyhood of not surviving the conflict. Americans are already plenty armed, yet largely there is peace, the law is respected, exceptions are few. Americans are not about to suddenly go Balkan on one another for minor matters, it would require serious injustices for us to take up arms.

Without this monopoly of force, rights are only abstractions, because they cannot be enforced.
Click to expand...
This is a strange sentence, and says a lot about the extreme authoritarian mindset of Josh. Whoever heard of a right being "enforced?" Josh obviously feels that rights only cease to be "abstractions" when the proper authorities write them down on paper and sign them. Authority is an illusion, always. And Josh is wrong anyways, some rights are "god given" or "human", including the right of self defense.
 
The notion that it is proper for the state to have a monopoly on force flows from, and seeks to perpetuate, what should by now be the bankrupt notion that sovereignty is somehow an attribute of the state. But what should be recognized as the cornerstone principle of a modern democracy is that ultimate sovereignty rests with the people. Indeed the Declaration of Independence says the governments, "...derive their just power from the consent of the governed."

If force is the province of sovereignty, and if ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, it is only proper that individuals retain access to the tools of force.
 
Jake did a pretty good job, above.

When the government has a monopoly on force the equivalent meaning is citizens are unable to resist government decrees. Hitler came to power in 1933 and in a few short years had swept away most of the Democratic institutions in Germany - or rendered them moot.

Josh Horowitz seems to be talking out of his rectum when he claims Saddam's government lacked legitimacy. According to whom? If it was not a legitimate government they why did the U.N., U.S., USSR, U.K., France, Germany and other states do business with him? It appears that he's attempting to say "only illegitimate governments would abuse their monopoly on force. :rolleyes:

Horowitz also ignores how the "state monopoly" on force leads to fear of government agents and general tyranny. Saddam's special units could conscript teens by force (kidnapping) and attempting to stop same was a serious offense. Hitler's use of Geheimstaatspolzei to dispose of political and social agitators is classic. Both Saddam and Hitler are prime examples of state monopolies on force.
 
Jake pretty well nailed the McVeigh issue, but there is one other aspect to that. It is a rather practical one- if a person is seen to be going off the reservation, he will be convicted by a jury of his peers. If he is legitimately striking back at an oppressive government that has itself gone nuts, then the doctrine of jury nullification enters the playing field (assuming he is ever caught and tried, if the government goes that wacko, he isn't likely to be alone).

Here's where things get equally cynical: history is written by the winners. Had our own revolution failed, the instigators would have been hanged as traitors. It succeeded, so they are remembered as founding fathers, statesmen, and champions of liberty. It's a pretty significant gamble. McVeigh's opinion was not shared, so he was tried as a murderer. If your opinion is shared, you will more likely be seen as one who issued a call to arms.

Either way, I think Jake is right- it is nothing more than FUD. Those who do such acts deserve the legal punishment they receive, since by the time their acts are justified, things will be so far gone that people will come out of the woodwork to carry on.
 
The Huffington Post is reliably leftist, and so any argument they make is likely to follow a Marxist conclusion, or as Weber is characterized, as someone who believed a "man can only reach his full potential in service to the state" (A. Hitler, circa 1938).

The basis of the Bill of Rights, Declaration and Constitution is that it looks the other way...not from the state as primary but the individual. A Bill of Rights is inconceivable in the kind of nation described by fascist principles.

Also, there is no monopoly on violence enjoyed by the state. Any state, any place. Even in Russia, there were crime gangs and a high murder rate, though indeed the state accounted for more dead citizens. The purges of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Hitler are the direct result of the state enjoying a so-called monopoly on Violence, but the state in each case has not been the only violent predator.

In this regard, the monopoly on violence is really the acceptance of those obeying the law whatever violence is imposed on them by the state or other criminal elements because they are disarmed.

A government ruling wisely has nothing to fear from armed citizens. We are edging away from that, and our would-be tyrants, the liberal fascists, are nervous.
 
My main goal was to see 1.) Does Horowitz's argument hold water? and 2.) Is there a line that can distinguish the difference between a McVeigh and a Patriot?

I'd say we've seen some well-built responses to 1.) and no, Horowitz misses the point of the constitution completely. Even if he was right, because our constitution makes The People the ultimate authority, it should only stand to reason (by his argument's standards) that the citizens control the monopoly, not the government.

And the second point... the threshold between McVeigh and a Patriot is a little more tricky but there are indicators. Perhaps the most important is the level of consesus - both in numbers and in the motivation of those numbers to act. To have a legitimate movement, in our country, you must have The People on your side or your are the enemy. The movement would certainly live past the deaths of some of its members.

There are a lot of good contributions to the topic here and I'm generally impressed with the level of thoughtfulness of the posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top