From what authority is a state granted its monopoly on violence?

If people are equal and have equal rights, should we not all have the right to self-defense? Is aggressive violence (meaning not out of defense) ever justifiable? I cannot think of any case where it would be. But if it is justifiable for the state, why would it not also be justifiable for individuals? Why would those who make up the state have special rights that do not apply to normal citizens? A state is not an entity to itself, only a collection of individuals. So how can something that is immoral for an individual be moral for a collection of individuals?

3/11/2010 3:22:16 PM

I take it by state you mean country and not one of the 50 US states?

3/11/2010 3:31:24 PM

I mean a sovereign state which is, according to Wikipedia, "the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population"

In our case, it would refer to the US government.

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ]

3/11/2010 3:34:37 PM

God grants them the authority


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

Quote :

"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

3/11/2010 3:34:38 PM

It would help if you told us in what context you are referring.
I can't remember the last time the state was violent against me.

3/11/2010 3:59:18 PM

It could be any context. When is it justified for a state to use violence to achieve a means for which it would not be justified for an individual?

3/11/2010 4:09:28 PM

It's obvious you're trying to bait us into a discussion about capital punishment, cops using tasers to force compliance, or some other tired topic. Why not just come out with it already?

3/11/2010 4:19:04 PM

I have no agenda other than to discuss the questions I asked. I'm just questioning the basis of a state's powers in general. Under what authority is a state granted a monopoly on violence? This question has far-reaching implications, since our entire society is based on this premise, and I'm just wondering how it is justified.

3/11/2010 4:29:51 PM

Do your own homework

3/11/2010 5:48:51 PM

Quote :

"From what authority is a state granted its monopoly on violence?"

You already know the answer to this. The state has the right to monopoly on violence just like it has the right to determine property rights, that is, it's ability to enforce it's monopoly.

It's not really about it's monopoly on violence, it's about it's monopoly on determining what is a punishable use of violence. For example, two boxers have the right to use violence against one another, because the government grants them that right. If the government no longer had the willingness or ability to enforce it's ability to determine what is punishable, then it would no longer have that ability. Morality is irrelevant to this.

Quote :

"So how can something that is immoral for an individual be moral for a collection of individuals?"

Again, to me, morality is irrelevant, these collection of individuals have the ability to enforce that right, thus why they have it. You only have the rights that you can enforce yourself, or that some other entity that can enforce them is willing to give to you. This may or may not be moral, that does not matter in the real world, this is the way it is.

Quote :

"Why not just come out with it already?"

He is really getting at another thread in which I pointed out it why it was so stupid that he used the term "coercion" to describe the the way the government takes things it is owed by pointing out that the government uses the same methods to take anything that anyone else owes as well.

Quote :

"I'm just wondering how it is justified."

Morally justified? Meaningless. Actually justified? By law.

3/11/2010 6:42:56 PM

Quote :

"He is really getting at another thread in which I pointed out it why it was so stupid that he used the term "coercion" to describe the the way the government takes things it is owed by pointing out that the government uses the same methods to take anything that anyone else owes as well."

Not really, although that thread is obviously related to these questions. That thread just made me start thinking more about the more general issues brought up here.

Quote :

"This may or may not be moral, that does not matter in the real world, this is the way it is."

Quote :

"Morally justified? Meaningless. Actually justified? By law."

I completely disagree. The purpose of the state is to determine and enforce law. The law must be based on some set of values or morals. How else is law established? There is no purpose for law if there are no moral values to distinguish what is right. If murder is not immoral, then why have a law against it?


Does anyone who believes in objective morality have any better answers?

[Edited on March 11, 2010 at 8:04 PM. Reason : -]

3/11/2010 8:01:40 PM

Quote :

"If murder is not immoral, then why have a law against it?"

because one does not want to be murdered?

3/11/2010 10:36:06 PM

why does it matter what anyone wants? whose opinion is it that gets to become law?

3/11/2010 11:04:57 PM

Guns grant them the authority.

3/11/2010 11:05:55 PM

Guns grant them power, not legitimate authority.

3/11/2010 11:15:34 PM

Quote :

"The purpose of the state is to determine and enforce law."

Like tax law?

Quote :

"The law must be based on some set of values or morals. How else is law established?"

Many things. For example, I wouldn't consider jaywalking immoral or against values, but it's illegal because it just isn't safe to have people walking on the street wherever they damn please.

Quote :

"There is no purpose for law if there are no moral values to distinguish what is right."

So there is no reason for seat belt laws? FCC regulations? Any number of the other laws we have that have nothing to do with morals?

Quote :

"Does anyone who believes in objective morality have any better answers?"

I believe in objective morality, I just don't find it relevant to laws. Laws are based on what works best for society, not just morals.

Quote :

"Guns grant them the authority."

Unfortunately that's where authority has to stem from in the real world, how else would you enforce property rights?

3/11/2010 11:17:20 PM

Quote :

"Like tax law?"

That's one example of current law, yes.

Quote :

"Many things. For example, I wouldn't consider jaywalking immoral or against values, but it's illegal because it just isn't safe to have people walking on the street wherever they damn please."

Lots of things aren't safe. Skydiving, rock climbing, war...

Quote :

"So there is no reason for seat belt laws? FCC regulations? Any number of the other laws we have that have nothing to do with morals?"

No reason that I can see.

Quote :

"I believe in objective morality, I just don't find it relevant to laws. Laws are based on what works best for society, not just morals."

What best works for society for whom? If there are no objective values to base these laws on, then the laws are just the opinion of some person or group of people. So why should this person or group of people be able to decide how the rest of society should act?

Quote :

"Unfortunately that's where authority has to stem from in the real world, how else would you enforce property rights?"

No, that's just tyranny, not legitimate authority.

3/11/2010 11:23:55 PM

Quote :

"No reason that I can see."

Then you're a moron. I'm not going to go through the effort of trying to figure out which law you support that has no direct basis in morality, but we both know there are some, but by the time I get you to admit it, just like the other thread, you'll claim to have forgotten the connection to this original point.

Quote :

"What best works for society for whom?"

That's up to the government that we vote for to decide.

Quote :

"If there are no objective values to base these laws on, then the laws are just the opinion of some person or group of people."

There are objective values that we base these laws on, but they aren't restricted to morality. It's well known that laws and morals are not the same. They can overlap, but they are not the same.

Quote :

"So why should this person or group of people be able to decide how the rest of society should act?"

Why should they? Irrelevant. Why do they? Because they can enforce their decision.

Quote :

"No, that's just tyranny, not legitimate authority."

Ok, then tell me how you would enforce property rights without using violence.

3/11/2010 11:38:40 PM

You're just going in circles. You're claiming that government is granted their authority by laws which are created by government. You still have not made an argument for the legitimacy of the government in the first place.

I never claimed that all violence was illegitimate. I believe self-defense of one's rights is legitimate. You have gotten away from the original questions. Does everyone not have the right to self-defense? What gives anyone the authority to violence outside of self-defense? And especially, why is this privilege granted only to a certain group but not to all individuals?

3/11/2010 11:46:39 PM

Quote :

"You still have not made an argument for the legitimacy of the government in the first place."

I'm not trying to make an argument for moral legitimacy of government, as I've said before, that's irrelevant.

Quote :

"I never claimed that all violence was illegitimate. I believe self-defense of one's rights is legitimate."

You stated that authority of guns was not legitimate authority. Like you JUST FUCKING SAID IT.
Me:Unfortunately [guns are] where authority has to stem from in the real world
You:No, that's just tyranny, not legitimate authority.

Quote :

"You have gotten away from the original questions."

No, you have. I pose a question, you backpedal, I pose another, you backpedal again, then you start asking "how'd we get way back here?"

3/11/2010 11:54:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm not trying to make an argument for moral legitimacy of government, as I've said before, that's irrelevant."

If government is illegitimate, then it is nothing but mob rule by the gang that has the most guns. That's far from irrelevant.

Quote :

"You stated that authority of guns was not legitimate authority. Like you JUST FUCKING SAID IT. Me:Unfortunately [guns are] where authority has to stem from in the real world You:No, that's just tyranny, not legitimate authority."

Right. And how does that conflict with me saying that not all violence is illegitimate? If the violence is in defense of rights, it is legitimate. However, I believe that this right extends to every individual. Additionally, I do not believe any individual (or group) has the right to initiate violence that is not in defense of rights. Merely having guns does not grant one authority.

3/12/2010 12:00:36 AM

Quote :

"If government is illegitimate, then it is nothing but mob rule by the gang that has the most guns."

Even if it were moral, that is still what it would be.

Quote :

"If the violence is in defense of rights, it is legitimate."

Then the argument is about rights, not violence, violence would be irrelevant.

Quote :

"Merely having guns does not grant one authority."

Someone with enough guns may or may not have moral authority, but the fact is that they do have real world authority.

3/12/2010 12:09:48 AM

The general consensus is that government has legitimate moral authority and a right to a monopoly of violence. So I am just curious as to how it is determined that they have this authority? If the government is not legitimate, then it is tyranny. If it is tyranny, should we not work to eliminate it?

3/12/2010 12:13:48 AM

So then you argument is whether or not our political system is "legitimate"?

3/12/2010 12:19:07 AM

Nothing is anything unless we say it is. This is not a meaningful observation.

Things aren't the way they are because they were design and built that way at one single point in time, they evolved that way from thousands of years of history. It's dumb to say our gov. is tyrannical because we can will it out of legitimacy. We've agreed to accept the established history of our society, and change it where we can, because it's conducive to living, versus nomadic hunting and gathering, or even farming.

3/12/2010 12:19:57 AM

Quote :

"So then you argument is whether or not our political system is "legitimate"?"

That is what the original post was asking. What authority gives them a legitimate right to hold a monopoly on force? I don't see how they can claim to have any right that individuals do not hold.

Quote :

"Things aren't the way they are because they were design and built that way at one single point in time, they evolved that way from thousands of years of history. It's dumb to say our gov. is tyrannical because we can will it out of legitimacy. We've agreed to accept the established history of our society, and change it where we can, because it's conducive to living, versus nomadic hunting and gathering, or even farming."

Who is "we"? I have already addressed this. If government's legitimacy is based on subjective opinion then who gets to decide and why?

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 12:29 AM. Reason : -]

3/12/2010 12:28:21 AM

Quote :

"Who is "we"? I have already addressed this. If government's legitimacy is based on subjective opinion then who gets to decide and why? "

People with power, because they have power.

3/12/2010 12:34:40 AM

He'll get into morals and how they are objective. The problem here is that a government cannot accurately reflect morality. They are not the same thing.

3/12/2010 12:38:27 AM

If that is the case, then what makes the US government ok, but the Nazi government evil and needing to be overthrown? Does a cruel dictator have the same legitimacy as a democracy? If the legitimacy of government is simply the fact that they are government (which really is not much of an argument) then any government would be as legitimate as any other?

3/12/2010 12:54:45 AM

You can compare governments on morals, but you cannot equate them to morals. Laws are not morals.

3/12/2010 1:16:54 AM

Quote :

"If that is the case, then what makes the US government ok, but the Nazi government evil and needing to be overthrown? Does a cruel dictator have the same legitimacy as a democracy? If the legitimacy of government is simply the fact that they are government (which really is not much of an argument) then any government would be as legitimate as any other?"

Can't you see that this is all relative? There are plenty of people in this world who do in fact think that we are as bad as Nazis and that our existence is detrimental to their existence. Who is right?

I don't give a shit because I'm on this side. We're right. Yes, it sucks that there are sides. Yes it sucks that imaginary lines on the ground defines people and their right to things. Fortunately you and I were born into this world within these borders. I'm going to eek out my existence on the side with the big guns.

3/12/2010 9:08:19 AM

Quote :

"You can compare governments on morals"

So on what moral basis should these governments be compared?

Quote :

"Can't you see that this is all relative? There are plenty of people in this world who do in fact think that we are as bad as Nazis and that our existence is detrimental to their existence. Who is right?"

No, I don't see that. I believe there is objective morality based on natural rights. Philosophers since Plato have been attempting to argue what a legitimate, moral government looks like. And I believe that if a government cannot be justified to be legitimate, then it should not exist.

3/12/2010 9:34:26 AM

Objective morality doesn't exist. In order for it to exist, there would need to be objective natural rights to violate, which there aren't.

The closest thing to it are natural rights that humans have (not always) agreed on. That alone should show you how subjective they are.

3/12/2010 9:50:28 AM

What you're claiming is that there is no absolute morality, and so whoever has the most power gets to set the rules based on whatever they feel like doing. I don't agree with this, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume it's true for now. For those who do believe in natural rights, would they not be justified in attempting to make society conform to their views? I may be wrong, but I would suspect that the majority of Americans (and most likely humans in general) believe in natural rights. Therefore, if a government were shown to be in violation of these natural rights, should the citizens not consider it to be immoral?

3/12/2010 10:16:24 AM

How would you define "legitimate authority"?

3/12/2010 10:35:32 AM

No, they would not be justified. It would be another case of someone fucking with other people in the name of something that doesn't exist.

The 9/11 bombers truly believed that they were doing God's will by flying planes into our buildings. Were they justified?

3/12/2010 10:37:33 AM

^^ I would define it as being moral, which to me means upholding natural rights.

Quote :

"No, they would not be justified. It would be another case of someone fucking with other people in the name of something that doesn't exist."

But if morality is subjective, then what makes this any different than any other group of people asserting their will on others?

Quote :

"The 9/11 bombers truly believed that they were doing God's will by flying planes into our buildings. Were they justified?"

According to you, yes. If you claim that there is no right and wrong, then it just comes down to who is able to best assert their will on those around them. No justification is needed.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 10:46 AM. Reason : ^^]

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 10:52 AM. Reason : define]

3/12/2010 10:44:38 AM

Justified in their own minds? Sure.

Justified in ours? No.

The point ------------------------------------ you.


I'm asking you if YOU think they were justified in your world view of killing >3,000 innocent Americans.
Because they think they were. If you don't, then you just proved to yourself that there is no objective morality.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ....]

3/12/2010 10:57:03 AM

Right, but if our own minds are the only ones that matter, then why does it matter what anyone else thinks? You're just saying they aren't justified in your opinion. What makes your opinion any more worthwhile than theirs? If there is no absolute morality, then all that matters is what people perceive morality to be. I think that most people believe natural rights to be moral.

3/12/2010 11:01:34 AM

All that *really* matters is who has the better army. Or more locally, who has the most guns. That's the point. There is no absolute moral authority to appeal to and the nature of our lives proves it.

"History is written by the victors"

3/12/2010 11:29:48 AM

So as I said, if that is true, then those who believe in natural rights should view a government who does not uphold those rights as immoral and should therefore work to eliminate such a government. Why would we want the power to be in the hands of those who have a different view of morality than we do?

3/12/2010 11:37:09 AM

Every single person on the face of this Earth has a different view of morality. I suggest you move to Fantasyland since that's the only place where you're going to be satisfied.

3/12/2010 11:39:47 AM

Satisfied with what? I guess I'm just working from the assumption that most people believe in natural rights, or at least equal rights. So I'm trying to figure out why, if people hold these ideas to be true, they see a state monopoly of force to be legitimate.

3/12/2010 12:53:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm just working from the assumption that most people believe in natural rights"

Well, there's your problem. The only thing give you as an American rights is the Bill of Rights(and other laws). The only thing preserving those rights from other countries is our military (though diplomatic relations could be argued helps).

Without our government, without people with guns saying so, you'd have no rights. The only right would be the rule of power. If someone wants your shit, and they have guns, they'll get your shit and you'll have no recourse.

The natural world has no morality. Morality is a social construct, invented to keep us from killing each other. If the shit were to hit the fan (nuclear war or something) you'd see what human nature really cares about when you're being killed for your fresh, non-irradiated water.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM. Reason : b]

3/12/2010 1:19:18 PM

So you're just claiming that most people don't really care about natural rights or equal rights? I was hoping someone would be able to argue that a state monopoly of force is compatible with natural rights. I don't see how it is, but I thought that was the prevailing attitude of the general public.

Quote :

"Without our government, without people with guns saying so, you'd have no rights. The only right would be the rule of power. If someone wants your shit, and they have guns, they'll get your shit and you'll have no recourse."

This certainly is not true. I would still have my rights, including the right to defend myself.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2010 1:38:08 PM

Quote :

"So you're just claiming that most people don't really care about natural rights or equal rights?"

People care about the rights *given to them* by the government because it means they get to go on with their happy little lives and have recourse if someone messes with their shit.

Take away the government. Take away the police. You will have no rights beyond what you can enforce with might.

"The right to defend yourself"? I'd say that may be the only actual natural right, but the only way you can have this right is if you have more guns than the other guy.

WHICH IS WHY THE GOVERNMENT GETS TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO. THEY HAVE MORE GUNS THAN YOU.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2010 1:46:42 PM

I don't think rights are given to us by the government. We have the right to defend ourselves no matter what the government says. It is not necessary for them to grant us this right. Whether or not we can adequately enforce this right is not an indication of actually having the right itself. What you are describing is just tyranny (they get to decide because they have guns, not because they have legitimate moral authority). I'm actually in agreement with you that government is in fact tyranny, but if this is the case why should we be ok with it?

3/12/2010 1:57:38 PM

Because it protects us from the other people in the world and lets you drink your coffee in peace.

"The right to defend yourself" is simply an extension of your right to exert your will over others. Which you only have if you're stronger than the other. Which really is the only right that exists.

Yes, we're in agreement. The US Government doesn't exist because it has legitimate moral authority. It exists because our forefathers preferred it to tearing each other apart or being ruled by a King.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2010 1:58:45 PM

Oh, so you're willing to trade your liberty for safety and comfort. That's a pretty risky outlook to take. As Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

3/12/2010 2:02:35 PM

We certainly have the option to rebel. All of our forefathers repeatedly said this. But we've given the government so many guns to protect us from the rest of the guns in the world that it wouldn't be easy. And who the hell is going to take time from raising their family to organize a rebellion large enough to take on the us gov't?

3/12/2010 2:04:08 PM