Why do you think it's better to have a monopoly on force?

[Anarchist420]

I don't understand it because a monopoly on force means centralized aggression.

In the long term, there would be less aggression committed if there were more sovereigns. In spite of that, most people still want there to be territorial monopolies on force. Why?

For example, the so-called Holy Roman Empire was largely confederalized and it was mostly only the kings who fought each other. The people didn't get dragged into it.

 

[Doppel]

it was mostly only the kings who fought each other. The people didn't get dragged into it.

lol WUT

STOP POSTING.

 

[piasabird]

It depends how much taxes you have to pay for that force and whether the central government starts too many wars that everyone has to pay for.

Centralized anything usually costs more.

Centralized corruption is more like it.

Why ask questions based on assumptions?

There are however some tasks like building warships and tanks and planes that are hard for local government to get accomplished.

 

[piasabird]

It is stupid if our centralized army is not permitted to protect our own border but is off attacking some other country for no logical reason. Libya never attacked the USA. Iraq was not attacking the USA. Why is the USA building up IRAQ and giving tanks and planes to Egypt? Do we just want to waste money on our enemies or what?

Maybe it is because the commander-in-chief is a muslim terrorist!

 

[IronWing]

lol WUT

STOP POSTING.

I started typing up a response concerning the Holy Roman Empire but you pretty much covered it all. I award Napoleon one cookie for finishing it off.

 

[OverVolt]

I was confused as I tried to understand, and then saw it was an anarchist420 thread.

 

[Jaepheth]

simply because

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

you're argument is therefore invalid.

 

[Juror No. 8]

In the long term, there would be less aggression committed if there were more sovereigns. In spite of that, most people still want there to be territorial monopolies on force. Why?

Honestly? Because people don't use their brains. Many are just plain stupid.

What's interesting is, most people can easily recognize that private business monopolies are harmful. They can deduce that private business monopolies will likely lead to higher prices, inefficiency, corruption, and marketplace abuses. It's simply intuitive that competition in the private sector is preferred, if not absolutely essential.

But when it comes to public monopolies, like government, their brains shut down. They forgot all about those problems associated with private monopolies (high prices, inefficiency, corruption, customer abuse) and delude themselves into thinking that humanity can't survive without government monopolies. It makes no sense at all, but they cling to this belief like a religion, because that's what they've been brainwashed to do.

 

[nehalem256]

Why do you think it's better to have a monopoly on force?

Because then I can make people do whatever I want.

nehalemtopia!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jaskalas]

Why do you think it's better to have a monopoly on force?

False premise, we don't have a monopoly. Unless you want to say our superpower status equates to that. In many ways MAD keeps us in check. In other ways, we are not immune to the costs of war. Titan though we are, we're not a monopoly

 

[Juror No. 8]

False premise, we don't have a monopoly. Unless you want to say our superpower status equates to that. In many ways MAD keeps us in check. In other ways, we are not immune to the costs of war. Titan though we are, we're not a monopoly

Actually, his premise is correct, as each individual national government is a legalized monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force which claims sovereignty and dominion over a specified geographical territory. The U.S. government has no competition for legal control over the people within U.S. borders. It acts as a monopoly.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Free Friggin Market!!!!

 

[Jaskalas]

Actually, his premise is correct, as each individual national government is a legalized monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force which claims sovereignty and dominion over a specified geographical territory. The U.S. government has no competition for legal control over the people within U.S. borders. It acts as a monopoly.

So the United States should have terrorist cells? That's pretty much what it amounts to when non-state entities use "force".

 

[Juror No. 8]

So the United States should have terrorist cells? That's pretty much what it amounts to when non-state entities use "force".

Are you really suggesting that the only alternative to government monopolies is terrorism? That people can't use force to protect their rights without being the equivalent of "terrorists"?

 

[OverVolt]

Tyrion & Varys Discuss Power [HD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpL6Fwu0wkw

He is saying "sellsword" = physical force, etc.

Stay till about half-way through the video for the riddle. Physical force on part of the government only exists so long as people believe it is for their own good or the greater good. It has nothing to do with the monopoly on physical force itself.

There are tons of quotes on this type of thing. Napoleons "Promise everything, deliver nothing." Sound like politicians these days? Thats just what they do. You either know about the nature of power like that, or you are very naive.

Read Niccolò Machiavelli, Napoleon, other kinds and leaders writings/quotes. The information is out there for those who care to know.

I do see it as

"The rich man" = Wall street, the Fed Reserve
"The king" = The Government
"The priest" = Religion, education, science, academia, "belief", the media, etc.
"The Sellsword" = Military & Police

Different sources of power: knowledge, money, and elected leaders, NOT physical force, they are paid. But who actually gets control. Happens in our world even right now.

Whose idea do you think drones are? Wall street? Lobbyists? Senators? Academia? Do you think the Police came up with the idea on their own? Do they have any say over how they are paid to use said drones? Is it the money they are paid, or the laws they follow that has more say over how they use the drones?

Hmm :awe:

 

[Jaskalas]

Are you really suggesting that the only alternative to government monopolies is terrorism? That people can't use force to protect their rights without being the equivalent of "terrorists"?

Couple things. First, they'd find themselves at odds with the government and thus declared terrorists whether it's true or not. Second, people would use force to protect their interests, not just their rights.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Couple things. First, they'd find themselves at odds with the government and thus declared terrorists whether it's true or not. Second, people would use force to protect their interests, not just their rights.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The fact still remains that the U.S. government represents a legal monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force. Secondly, non-state actors using force isn't necessarily terrorism, as you indicated earlier. For instance, one might use force to defend his life and person against a back alley mugger. Nobody in their right mind would describe such a use of defensive force as "terrorism". It's absurd.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The fact still remains that the U.S. government represents a legal monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force. Secondly, non-state actors using force isn't necessarily terrorism, as you indicated earlier. For instance, one might use force to defend his life and person against a back alley mugger. Nobody in their right mind would describe such a use of defensive force as "terrorism". It's absurd.

You're already allowed to protect yourself. What you're wanting isn't exactly clear.

"Initiation of aggressive force". Well that's an interesting one. If say, the United States allowed private contractors to invade Iraq... while we played host and willing party? As if we wouldn't / shouldn't stop such things?

Private parties are going to find themselves at odds with the government, and if they do not defer to it then violence will ensure.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The fact still remains that the U.S. government represents a legal monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force. Secondly, non-state actors using force isn't necessarily terrorism, as you indicated earlier. For instance, one might use force to defend his life and person against a back alley mugger. Nobody in their right mind would describe such a use of defensive force as "terrorism". It's absurd.

That can change if peoples beliefs change.

Money has all the power right now, but there was a time when religion, and government had equal or more power. The decline of religion is probably correlated with the rise of money as the premiere power.

So basically if you can hire someone to do your dirty work, it'll get done, he who pays the army/police holds the power right now.

From the riddle "If the king, a wealthy man and a priest all hire the sellsword to kill the other two people of power, who wins?" The wealthy man would currently win.

If people have a change of belief then that won't be true if their beliefs lie elsewhere other than money above all. Money after all is smoke and mirrors fiat money just like all other beliefs.

Won't happen anytime soon, but this is how power shifts. Money and how there are different world reserve currencies and how some forms of fiat money collapse while others thrive etc. is ENTIRELY based on belief.

People trust the US currency as a safe-haven currency right now, versus the Yen (too much inflation) or the Euro (too many risks), or versus China (They are shady, can you trust them?). However if the US abuses that trust you will see a large shift in peoples beliefs. It takes time (decades at least).

 

[Juror No. 8]

You're already allowed to protect yourself. What you're wanting isn't exactly clear.

It's not clear to you because I never claimed to "want" anything. It seems you're having difficulty following the discussion.

"Initiation of aggressive force". Well that's an interesting one. If say, the United States allowed private contractors to invade Iraq... while we played host and willing party? As if we wouldn't / shouldn't stop such things?

I have no idea what you're even talking about now. What do private contractors have to do with anything?

 

[IronWing]

The OP's reference to the Holy Roman Empire suggests that he views a nation of heavily armed, free-acting, perpetually feuding warlords asserting their "rights" as preferable to a nation with a single, unified military.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Soviet Russia had a single, unified military. So did Nazi Germany. Communist China still has one.

Considering such examples, what's so great about a "single, unified military"?

 

[CitizenKain]

It makes no sense at all, but they cling to this belief like a religion, because that's what they've been brainwashed to do.

Speaking of brainwashed, teenaged anarchists!

Soviet Russia had a single, unified military. So did Nazi Germany. Communist China still has one.

Considering such examples, what's so great about a "single, unified military"?

So has every other country in existence! Amazing thinking you are doing there.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Amazing thinking you are doing there.

Yes, it's so amazing, you apparently don't have any kind of answer for it.

Derp.

 

[CitizenKain]

Yes, it's so amazing, you apparently don't have any kind of answer for it.

Derp.

You are the one trying to invent something about a centralized military, so back it up with something.