Have we defined the State right?

Economics Political Theory
1

While pondering on the State and its nature, a few days ago I was struck by an idea. Please share your thought with me on this one, for I find it important.

Everyone from Weber on defined the State as (roughly speaking) the organization which sports the legitimate monopoly of violence in a given territory. Hoppe goes on to add a second characteristic, the ability to gain its income form taxation (non-voluntary payments), but I’ll rather focus on the first “universal” characteristic as without having a monopoly of force one can’t exact any kind of forced payment form anyone.

So, the story goes, if most people view an organization as having the rightful monopoly of violence in a giver area, that is a State. How misled by Weber have we been!

Suppose a market-anarchic society, in which there is no such a thing as the state. I own a small restaurant and I require every guest not to carry firearms inside. Of course, everyone that enters with a firearms is thus violating my property, allowing me to kick him out.

Or I could even go on further to state, at the entrance of my place, that whoever comes in must agree to my every whim instantly, or else leave. Note that I’m completely entitled to do so, as the restaurant being my property, whoever gets in must do so on my terms. So if I just start to shoot people randomly in my place, and they don’t scream “Stop, I’ll go away!” (indicating they no longer wish to remain in my property), then I’m completely right in my actions (that is legally, not morally).

So, in my own property I’m the lord of the land, I’m the LEGITIMATE monopolist of violence! Just as a state! But how can I be a State if in anarchy there should be no Sstates? Am I really being a State?

Of course not, but all this confusion started out only because we got the State wrong: it in’t the legitimate monopolist of violence in a given territory, for everyone is just that in his own property!

Theoretically a State, in public land can do as it wishes.

So, where do “real” states differ from anarchistic individuals exercising their right on their own property?

Simple,

  1. States exercise their power on other people’s property, not just their own,
  2. States gain their property mostly in a non-voluntary fashion (expropriation, war),
  3. States do not recognize the right unlimited to leave (either by closing borders or seceding with one’s property form the State altogether).

IF a State abided by all these standards, I submit there would be nothing wrong in it. So, the State, I feel, must be redefined as:

An organization perceived by most as having the legitimate right to disrespect property rights.

And this opens up some very interesting insight, but let’s leave those for an other post.

Looking forward to your ideas.

What am I? (flow chart)
The Myth That Is Falling Real Wages
Self-Ownership?
Self-Ownership?
2

You cannot legally shoot someone and endanger their life unless they pose a threat to your own life. The idea that you can do whatever you want to people on a certain plot of land because you have mixed your labor with it is completely absurd.

Also, public land is not acquired or financed through labor on the state’s behalf. It is acquired through theft and maintained through theft. It doesn’t belong to the ‘public’ or the government which supposedly acts on behalf of the ‘public’. Since it is not possible to accurately determine who’s money purchased and maintains the land, I would say that it is simply unowned land controlled by government mandate.

3

Quick to answer, that’s what I’m talking about :slight_smile:

Now…

Really? Are you, than, against euthanasia? Haven’t I the right to commit suicide? For if I do, if I voluntarily agree to kill my self, what difference is there between me using a gun, and me asking a friend? As long as it is VOLUNTARY and doesn’t harm third parties, I don’t care what it is. So if you agree to my shooting you, I indeed do have the right to shoot you. This is true on everyone’s property, not just my own. I dicuss the restaurant example only to provide proof that my guest would be asking me to kill them, if I make it clear that by entering they’re agreeing to such a thing.

So, if you still disagree that I’ve the right to shoot my gests in my place, please refer to which of these points you find unacceptable:

  1. People have the right to kill themselves
  2. hence, people have the right to commit suicide by means of other people, as long as this is voluntary a transaction
  3. hence, if the guy I’m bout to shoot gives me the right to do so, I am, legally speaking, within my tights, even if the poor felow hasn’t harmed by in any way
  4. if I make it abundantly clear that entering my premises means being subjected to deadly force, and if a visitor doesn’t want to leave (for even after entering, he might change his mind, this being his right), than he is agreeing to be shot, and since I might also be agreeing to do so, I violate no right when doing so.

Shortly, it is voluntary, and harms no third parties. What’s wrong then? And if this is wrong (which it isn’t), why drugs should be legalized (which they should), this being a completely analogous example?

On the other hand, shooting a guy if he poses a threat to you isn’t voluntary, just an involuntary action that people can rightfully engage in. These are two totally different instances.

Well, I said that myself.

I don’t mean that governments are within their rights, for they aren’t for the 3 reasons I discussed. I totally agree with you that government property is illegitimate, and that is my point. Precisely because government property is illegitimate, than governments are immoral, NOT because they are legitimated monopolist of force.

Me, you, everyone is such a thing in his own territory, provided that he acts on premises he made amply known to everyone entering his property, else what he might be doing to whoever is in might not be voluntary. (known premises mean voluntary action)

So, please understand that “governments do not merit their property” is no argument against my thesis, all the contrary.

4

Within the context of the discussion, I was referring specifically towards an action the other person did not contract to.

Simply walking onto someones property does not entail agreement to a contract. A contract only exists where there is voluntary exchange of property or consent to the terms of the contract. Someone walking onto your property has not demonstrated any will to exchange property with you, only a will to trespass. In a court of law you would undoubtedly be obligated to prove that the individual you shot knowingly, and in full faith, gave his life over to you to end. Citing an undocumented agreement between the trespasser and yourself that his presence on your property was the term by which the contract would be merited will most probably be not cut it.

No. Not agreeing to leave is not the same thing as agreeing to be shot, since it is not an imperative outcome that he is shot if he doesn’t leave. You are still consciously making a decision to shoot him. Seeing as he has made no threat against your life, you are not entitled to take his.

I didn’t say this. I said the government is not a property holder as it does not acquire property. It takes property from others, uses that property to control certain plots of land, buildings, weapons, etc. However, you cannot point to someone working for the government government and say that they own anything. The property is merely managed by them in the name of “the people”. There are no shareholders, no investors, nobody has any claim to the property, the government simply manages it.

5

If you say that the government manages things, you ought to use quotations around the word “manages”.

6

Well of course it does! If I state that only those who agree to, say, pay 5 dollars for each meter they walk into my property will actually be allowed to walk on it, do you seriously doubt that here the trespasser isn’t agreeing to pay me? Please note that I haven’t used the word “contract” precisely because I knew I’d get back a legalistic nonsense, something like “one has a contract only when exchanging property”, etc.”. Besides the really obvious point that neither you nor I can define what two other people agree to consider “property”, and hence exchange, let’s just fly over all this and let me reiterate that I’m speaking of no “contract” here, just a voluntary action of two parties.

Now, we must discern two different discussions here.

First, if an arbiter is presented with a case of “murder” by a guy who hung at the entrance of his house “ALL THOSE ACCEPTED INTO THIS PROPERTY SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO THE FULL LEGAL RULES OF THE FORMER UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, AS THEY APPPLIED ON NOVEMBER 1988”, and that the “victim”, fully knowing this, entered and spoke of “liberty of political action” in the premises. Thus the landlord, bored as he was, decided to just shoot him there, after a 5-minute trial for “high treason”. Now, can you see that here we have a fully voluntary action, for in no case the “victim” asked do be escorted outside (suppose this is proven by many eyewitnesses). Would you yourself seriously contemplate calling this murder and still profess attachment to voluntarism?

Yet there is a second line to be picked up here, and that is probably what you mean in your post. If it can’t be proven that said warning existed or has been provided, or that the “victim” asked to be escorted outside, at any moment, than we could contemplate this as a case of murder because of lack of proof of voluntarism. This would of course depend of the case at hand, no two being similar, and I fully agree that on the real world no one would willingly kill his guest and even those few who did would be compelled to warn everyone well in advance and tape the whole thing, to prove that never did the victim ask to leave. So, on practical terms this would be a very rare occurrence (murder isn’t really good for business), and would make for some hard cases, but the basic truth here, that a guy who enters my property does so on my own term is, I believe, undisputable.

It is the same if I feel like shooting him. A voluntary “transaction” entails the will of both parties. The guy on my land has agreed to my term by simply being on my land, while I may or may not feel like carrying my terms. There is, of course, no “obligation” here, but the landlord feeling like it, it might well happen.

Once again, I fully agree. My intention here is just to prove that saying that something is “viewed by most as having the monopoly of violence in a given territory” is not saying “State”, but just any property owner. The state is the corrupted and genocidal organization that we all know NOT as it is viewed as having such a monopoly. Every owned does. The state “cheats” only becouse it assumes the right to be the only one not respecting other’s property, and it thrives only when most believe this.

7

Instead of throwing out Weber’s definition, we should simply tweak it slightly. Instead of the state being the legitimate organization with a monopoly on violence in a given territory; it should be said that the state is the firm with the largest “market share” on violence (usually maintaining its dominance by having a portion of the people within its territory view it as legitimate). What do you think?

8

This definition implies several things. Let me touch a couple briefly:

1-there are, or potentially could be, several firms in the market of “violence”. Unfortunately that isn’t true, not because such other firms are lacking for there are indeed many private security services or mob groups, but rather because the State assumes the right to trample them all. In this sense “free entry” into such a market is nonexistent.

2-asumign that there is such a thing as a firm (be it a single one) operating in the market of “violence”, we must than accept that either a) such services are being paid for by customers, which actually have the right to exert violent themselves, for them to be able to delegate it at a price afterwards, or else b), such a firm is automatically assuming a right form the citizens which it forbids them to exert. In case A, we all know that not only you and I aren’t allowed to punish aggressors ourselves, but even the field of immediate self-defense is coming under ever-growing pressure. So, that can’t be the case. Should B apply, as it does, than we face no “firm” at all, a gang at most, so a “market-based” definition, like the pone you propose is inadequate.

But let us fly over the first objection by assuming that somehow there are such economies of scale to be exploited in the “violence” business that a single firm covering hundreds of millions of clients can effectively enjoy a market-based monopoly. But eve now, if a state, or any other entity, for that mater is to be justified in applying violence it must either 1) receive the right to violence by someone else who has it or else 2) have such a right himself. Thus a state must rightfully violate who it want only on its legitimate property or else on someone else’s property under his request. And I myself would be the first to declare that state law is no longer valid in my house if allowed to do so.

So, a state can’t be considered “the larges firm” because it doesn’t apply voluntarism, or strictly speaking, doesn’t recognize property rights. And that is the sole difference, albeit an immensely important one, between a State and every decent property owner.

9

You’re correct that “State” isn’t defined properly, and that that obscures the matter in pernicious ways. However, your redefinition is unavoidably confused because you refer to the concept of property. The matter of “who’s property is who’s” in terms of de facto property rights is exactly what a monopoly on force itself determines. There’s no use in trying to explain a fundamental concept in terms of a less fundamental one, especially one that directly depends on the more fundamental one.

The State is a monopoly on force. The only reason to include the notion of whether people view it as “legitimate” or not would be if that perception of legitimacy (or lack thereof) affected the State’s ability to remain a monopoly. But in either case, the relevant portion of the meaning is already included in the idea of “monopoly on force.”

Sure a monopoly on force doesn’t by its very nature go against most versions of libertarian ethics, but no one has any way of knowing that it might not start committing violations tomorrow (and there is really no reason to expect monopolies on force to “behave”; like some guy having a doomsday device, it’s a clear-and-present danger). So it’s hardly a worthwhile distinction to make in practice.

10

And I thought the topic had died.

The State is a monopoly on force. The only reason to include the notion of whether people view it as “legitimate” or not would be if that perception of legitimacy (or lack thereof) affected the State’s ability to remain a monopoly. But in either case, the relevant portion of the meaning is already included in the idea of “monopoly on force.”

[/quote]

Saying that the State is a “monopoly of force” would be like asserting that Humans are “warm blooded creatures”. We fail to render the uniqueness of the State, because that very definition encompasses the property holder: I too, I my own house, set my own law, and assume to myself the full power of using coercion. Can this power be abused? As long as I make it clear to anyone that I myself exert full powers in my house, than all my actions are, by definition, being voluntarily accepted by whoever enters. They are, according to libertarian ethics, intrinsically right.

The crucial point indeed. I certainly canon answer that question praxeologicaly, nor do I except anyone to. From a purely formal point of view, you are indeed right. But as things stand it just so happens that the concept of property exists, and people always have certain preferences as to what is considered proper or not. Hence, people always have a certain perception of a “legitimate property holder”. This can only be established in practice, even Mises takes the fact that people can discern the material world form the spiritual one (i.e. “property”) for granted.

Thus, seeing clearly that 1) the concept of property exists and 2) the concept of righteousness exist, we can use meaningfully phrases like “ X is generally seen as a legitimate property holder”, with all hat this entitles. As to the dynamic of the process, who comes to hold what property, I trust neither of us believes that the State had anything to do with either the initial distribution of property, nor that property cannot change hands without a State.

And than again, even defining the State as the legitimate monopoly of force implies that the concept on “property” has some meaning, else how could “monopoly” be understood?

Thus what you hold against my definition also stands against the more orthodox definite.

All I’m saying is that rearranging the information we have, and what we take for granted, we can see that the State is not just the “legitimated monopolist of force”, but the “legitimated breaker of property conventions”. As to what do such conventions mount, one cannot say a priori.

Perhaps it would help if one could come up a counterexample: a State that emerged where no concept of property at all existed? Even as a though-experiment, among ideal Buddhist monks for example, this would be helpful.

11

I think the confusion you point to is merely because the general definition assumes implicitly that the monopoly being considered ranges over a geographical area and remains with the institution in perpetuity and cannot be transferred regardless of the arrangement of private property owners in the region.

in other words the state is the legal monopoly of force over a geographical area and is not a landowner.(though may be an illegitimate land-holder)

12

Perhaps if we consider the situation that arises when two or more states are present, we could see that a state vis-à-vis an other is in the same position of a “normal” land-holder: should a new state take control over the territory formerly possessed by the first state, it then becomes its own territory, just like property passes on between two individuals in a free market. Of course the parallel is far from perfect, but generally I believe that states to need not be attached to territory in per se, and can switch territories as time goes by.

The fact that between states and individuals no such transaction take place, as one would expect from normal property holders, just emphasizes that the State changes form such normal land-holder only as it is regarded as having the right to infringe property conventions.

13

This sums up the issue quite nicely

Somehow I suspect it will be completely ignored.

14

To repeat my objection to that post, would person A asking me to shoot him (perhaps he suffers a conical malady and has unbearable pains), and me complying mean aggression against A? To those that say “yes, killing a human is aggression, no mater on what condition”, I have nothing more to say, for our ideas diverge too much.

If, on the contrary, one sees that anything at all that is conducted voluntarily between two or more persons is justifiable, no mater what a third party might think about the particular transaction, if we stick to Human Will as the highest Judge of them all, then we must see that a land-holder posting at his doorstep “be entering this property you agree to be potentially murdered without previous notice”, aggresses against t no one at all, for anyone shot in this manner has done so voluntarily, completely free of coercion.

Thus, a land-holder, as long as he makes it clear beforehand to anyone the condition of entering his premises can impose whatever condition to whomever enters as long as they agree to remain within the premises. I really don’t see anything particular challenging, form a theoretical point of view, in this idea.

15

Just more nonsense. This is not a serious discussion.

16

Disarming argument indeed[;)]

17

Two words for you : inalienable rights.

By the way, don’t fool yourself : a page full of fallacies is not an argument.

18

For Heaven’s Sake, if I where suffering from a tremendously painful incurable malady I wouldn’t want an “inalienable rights” believer as my doctor.

19

I’m sure that in a free market you would be able to buy any sort of poison and drink it if you want. You don’t need the ‘services’ of a member of the medical mafia if you want to kill yourself. Still, I don’t think this is relevant to the definition of ‘state’.

20

What if I’m paralytic, and can but control my head? Would it be unthinkable for me not to want to live a single day in that state? Can I kill myself? No, I can only seek the help of others verbally.

What I just want someone to kill me, for whatever reason? Why can’t a transaction between two parties take place? Because someone else disagrees? Sound a lot like the State to me.

I think it really is important due to the reasons I outlined in my “two pages of fallacies” above.