|
|
On July 27 2012 07:50 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:04 coverpunch wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 26 2012 13:01 coverpunch wrote:On July 26 2012 12:11 SkyCrawler wrote:On July 26 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:On July 26 2012 06:46 coverpunch wrote:
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts? Technically the 2nd Amendment is granted by the government to people and so is the right to kill in self-defense. While exercising one's 2nd Amendment right or self-defense right is one's own decision, it is legitimized by the government. That's my way of looking at it. The government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force, but they license some of that legitimacy to us in certain situations. Actually the Constitution flows the opposite direction. The Constitution is written by the people for the people and enumerates the powers that are given to the government. The Bill of Rights spells out which rights are inviolable by the government and can never be taken away (although they can be restricted; for gun control, the government can ban the sale of guns to people with a history of violent crime). So you control the monopoly of force, although the government can and does restrict it in many ways. You must not understand how the state works. Yes, the constitution limits what the government can and cannot do. The government still holds the monopoly of force, not you. You indirectly state this yourself ("although the government can and does restrict it in many ways"). Whenever the government loses the monopoly of force it stops being a functional government. Er, no. Take your logic to an extreme. Does the state give me the right to life and tolerate my survival? No, of course not. People give the government its power. Take that to an extreme. Can people tear down their own government and start from scratch? Yes. People have the monopoly of force. Government provides the forum through which the process and legitimacy of using force is decided. The restrictions and limitations on force are not powers that the government has to monopolize force, it's a way to prevent violence between citizens or with another country. They're rules that the people decide to impose on themselves, not rules that a class of people get to impose on everyone else. Of course they can, but as long as they don't, the government has the monopoly of force. If it doesn't then the government doesn't function. Your second paragraph presumes democracy which isn't the only form of government. For a recent example of a government losing the monopoly of force, see Libya. All governments of states have monopoly of force as long as they're functional, and when they don't, they stop working. So the people in fact do not have the monopoly of force unless they bring down the government first (creating anarchy).
The government has the authority of force but the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. It's a broad authority but it's not a monopoly.
There is a careful but important distinction, particularly in the American right to bear arms. As I wrote before, that's not a right given to the people, that's a right listed in the Constitution that is inviolable by the state.
A monopoly would imply that it would be justified for a country to go to war or to use force on the population against the will of the people. That is tyranny, as you noted, and that's why we have this distinction in the United States. The American government demands due process to justify violence but that isn't the same as saying only the government can endorse violence.
So I will say that this isn't necessarily true in every country. For instance, China believes very strongly that all rights are granted by the state, so the Chinese government considers itself to hold a monopoly on force as payment for those rights. But that's not how it is supposed to work in the United States.
|
On July 27 2012 08:27 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:50 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 27 2012 02:04 coverpunch wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 26 2012 13:01 coverpunch wrote:On July 26 2012 12:11 SkyCrawler wrote:On July 26 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:On July 26 2012 06:46 coverpunch wrote:
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts? Technically the 2nd Amendment is granted by the government to people and so is the right to kill in self-defense. While exercising one's 2nd Amendment right or self-defense right is one's own decision, it is legitimized by the government. That's my way of looking at it. The government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force, but they license some of that legitimacy to us in certain situations. Actually the Constitution flows the opposite direction. The Constitution is written by the people for the people and enumerates the powers that are given to the government. The Bill of Rights spells out which rights are inviolable by the government and can never be taken away (although they can be restricted; for gun control, the government can ban the sale of guns to people with a history of violent crime). So you control the monopoly of force, although the government can and does restrict it in many ways. You must not understand how the state works. Yes, the constitution limits what the government can and cannot do. The government still holds the monopoly of force, not you. You indirectly state this yourself ("although the government can and does restrict it in many ways"). Whenever the government loses the monopoly of force it stops being a functional government. Er, no. Take your logic to an extreme. Does the state give me the right to life and tolerate my survival? No, of course not. People give the government its power. Take that to an extreme. Can people tear down their own government and start from scratch? Yes. People have the monopoly of force. Government provides the forum through which the process and legitimacy of using force is decided. The restrictions and limitations on force are not powers that the government has to monopolize force, it's a way to prevent violence between citizens or with another country. They're rules that the people decide to impose on themselves, not rules that a class of people get to impose on everyone else. Of course they can, but as long as they don't, the government has the monopoly of force. If it doesn't then the government doesn't function. Your second paragraph presumes democracy which isn't the only form of government. For a recent example of a government losing the monopoly of force, see Libya. All governments of states have monopoly of force as long as they're functional, and when they don't, they stop working. So the people in fact do not have the monopoly of force unless they bring down the government first (creating anarchy). Well now we're just going in circles. The government has the authority of force but the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. There is a careful but important distinction, particularly in the American right to bear arms. As I wrote before, that's not a right given to the people, that's a right listed in the Constitution that is inviolable by the state. A monopoly would imply that it would be justified for a country to go to war or to use force on the population against the will of the people. That is tyranny, as you noted, and that's why we have this distinction in the United States. The American government demands due process to justify violence but that isn't the same as saying only the government can endorse violence. So I will say that this isn't necessarily true in every country. For instance, China believes very strongly that all rights are granted by the state, so the Chinese government considers itself to hold a monopoly on force as payment for those rights. But that's not how it is supposed to work in the United States.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with what you're discussing. In the U.S., the state does have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. This means that private individuals are not allowed to use violence against other individuals unless they do so in the conditions determined by the state (for example in cases of legitimate defense). The expression "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence" comes from Weber.
|
I did a Google search too but you're going to have to do a little better than name-dropping a 19th century German philosopher.
|
On July 27 2012 09:05 coverpunch wrote:
I did a Google search too but you're going to have to do a little better than name-dropping a 19th century German philosopher.
I've studied Weber enough not to need to do a google search on the topic, but thanks for the condescending reply. Feel free to reply when you have an argument.
|
On July 27 2012 09:05 coverpunch wrote:
I did a Google search too but you're going to have to do a little better than name-dropping a 19th century German philosopher.
Or you could try actually educating yourself on the matter. Kwizach obviously knows what he's talking about and, being a political science student, so do I.
|
On July 27 2012 09:05 coverpunch wrote:
I did a Google search too but you're going to have to do a little better than name-dropping a 19th century German philosopher.
Hmmm, that's a funny looking argument ...
|
Look guys, your argument is basically amounting to "NUH UH!" What I'm looking for are facts or actual applications of these principles to history, even hypothetical situations. How does the government use its monopoly of force? Why does it have such a thing? What would it look like if it doesn't have a monopoly of force and how is that different from what the US government looks like right now?
In the context of this thread, has President Obama made this power stronger, weaker, or no different? Are you happy with that, knowing what he inherited from Bush? Would Romney be different?
The 2nd Amendment has everything to do with this because of the misconception that the Constitution grants rights to American citizens when it is precisely the other way around, We the People grant the government its powers.
But here's a case that sort of applies it and affirms the individual right of the 2nd Amendment: DC vs Heller from the Supreme Court.
C'mon guys.
|
On July 27 2012 12:03 coverpunch wrote:Look guys, your argument is basically amounting to "NUH UH!" What I'm looking for are facts or actual applications of these principles to history, even hypothetical situations. How does the government use its monopoly of force? Why does it have such a thing? What would it look like if it doesn't have a monopoly of force and how is that different from what the US government looks like right now? The 2nd Amendment has everything to do with this because of the misconception that the Constitution grants rights to American citizens when it is precisely the other way around, We the People grant the government its powers. But here's a case that sort of applies it and affirms the individual right of the 2nd Amendment: DC vs Heller from the Supreme Court.
Wrong case, incidentally--you should be citing McDonald v Chicago. DC v Heller is rather narrow.
Other than that, I think you're misunderstanding the "monopoly on force" idea. When we say the government has a "monopoly on force", we mean that only the government (as a representation of the people, in democratic thought) has the ability to decide when violence can be used. Individuals do not have that right. Even in cases where individuals can use force (self-defense) without explicit governmental approval, they can do so only when following certain laws. Were the government not to have a monopoly on force, anyone would be able to choose to use violence at any time; for example, I could shoot a random person that I think is a murderer without having to go through those unpleasant procedures called "fair trials" and "due process". The loss of the government's monopoly on force is essentially the definition of anarchy.
|
Sigh.
You know, me and and xDaunt agree on almost nothing. We have made our fair share of cheap shots at these Presidential candidates. We've had our moments of giddy hysteria when the candidate we hate puts his foot in their mouth.
But wow. The ebb and flow of this year's elections cycle has been remarkably entertaining.
First, Romney was getting dragged over the coals for not releasing his tax returns ... making him pretty much the least transparent candidate in the past 30-odd years.
Then "You-didn't-build-that" happened, and Republican's have been huffing and puffing and remixing that earbug into the song of the summer.
Now, we have Mitt 'Magoo' Romney on his own 'World Apology Tour', and it's off to a humiliating start.
Mitt Romney, in his first trip abroad as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, is trying to walk back comments he made questioning London's Olympics preparation -- comments that have drawn a sharp response from Prime Minister David Cameron.
The dustup began Wednesday, as Romney, who ran the 2002 Salt Lake City games, said there were "disconcerting" signs in the days before this year's games.
"The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials -- that obviously is not something which is encouraging," he told NBC News.
"Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment? And that's something which we only find out once the games actually begin," he said.
Cameron soon rebuked Romney. "We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course, it's easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere," he said.
"I think we will show the whole world not just that we come together as a United Kingdom, but also we're extremely good at welcoming people from across the world," Cameron added. "I will obviously make those points to Mitt Romney. I look forward to meeting him."
In comments before meeting with Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, Romney was more measured. "My experience with regards to the Olympics is it is impossible for absolutely no mistakes to occur," he said. "Of course, there will be errors from time to time, but those are all overshadowed by the extraordinary demonstrations of courage, character and determination by the athletes."
UPDATE: 3:35 p.m. -- Mitt Romney's disastrous British trip continued Thursday when, according to The Huffington Post UK, he "caused amusement" by saying he had spent a great day in the "backside" of Downing Street, rather than the back garden.
In another faux pas, Romney announced his meeting with MI6, the U.K. Secret Intelligence Service whose existence was only acknowledged by the British government in 1994.
"I appreciated the insights and perspectives of the leaders of the government here and opposition here as well as the head of MI6," he told reporters.
MI6 was mum about the meeting, according to the Wall Street Journal. "[MI6 Chief] Sir John Sawers meets with lots of people," said an aide in the British foreign press office, "but we don’t give a running commentary of any of these meetings."
London Mayor Boris Johnson hit back at Romney's comments about the Summer Games before a crowd of 60,000 in Hyde Park. "There is a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know if we are ready. Yes, we are," he declared.
Romney also seemed to break the longstanding rule for U.S. politicians not to criticize the president overseas. At a fundraiser for American expats, he reportedly said, "I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," referring to the White House returning the artwork to the British Embassy in early 2009. President Barack Obama replaced it with a bust of Abraham Lincoln.
To top it off, Johnson finished his appearance by leading the crowd in a chant of 'Yes We Can,' President Barack Obama's famous campaign slogan from 2008.
"Can we put on the greatest Olympics games that have ever been held?" he asked. "Can we beat France? Yes we can! Can we beat Australia? Yes we can!"
HI-LAR-IOUS.
|
Seems like Mitt flubbed it a little bad there. I mean, I agree that if you're told the security firm for the olympics doesn't have enough guys, that's disconcerting. It's not like nobody's been killed there before (Munich massacre). I agree that strikes and rumors of strikes are bad news. But you don't mention it on national television for the press to feed on.
Especially after + Show Spoiler [Obama gave him this] +
You can run a campaign off the backlash to that sound bite from small business owners, corporate workers, anyone that's made personal sacrifices for their jobs. But maybe his campaign will have a brain that they lacked in the primaries and focus in on what resonates. I think it'll be who articulates their stance on the issues in the debates even more than the rest.
|
|
|
What the hell point is he making? Trolololol. And yet he can't help but tell everyone when he gets to meet M6. Closet Anglophile in denial.
|
On July 27 2012 07:50 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:04 coverpunch wrote:On July 27 2012 01:16 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 26 2012 13:01 coverpunch wrote:On July 26 2012 12:11 SkyCrawler wrote:On July 26 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:On July 26 2012 06:46 coverpunch wrote:
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts? Technically the 2nd Amendment is granted by the government to people and so is the right to kill in self-defense. While exercising one's 2nd Amendment right or self-defense right is one's own decision, it is legitimized by the government. That's my way of looking at it. The government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force, but they license some of that legitimacy to us in certain situations. Actually the Constitution flows the opposite direction. The Constitution is written by the people for the people and enumerates the powers that are given to the government. The Bill of Rights spells out which rights are inviolable by the government and can never be taken away (although they can be restricted; for gun control, the government can ban the sale of guns to people with a history of violent crime). So you control the monopoly of force, although the government can and does restrict it in many ways. You must not understand how the state works. Yes, the constitution limits what the government can and cannot do. The government still holds the monopoly of force, not you. You indirectly state this yourself ("although the government can and does restrict it in many ways"). Whenever the government loses the monopoly of force it stops being a functional government. Er, no. Take your logic to an extreme. Does the state give me the right to life and tolerate my survival? No, of course not. People give the government its power. Take that to an extreme. Can people tear down their own government and start from scratch? Yes. People have the monopoly of force. Government provides the forum through which the process and legitimacy of using force is decided. The restrictions and limitations on force are not powers that the government has to monopolize force, it's a way to prevent violence between citizens or with another country. They're rules that the people decide to impose on themselves, not rules that a class of people get to impose on everyone else. Of course they can, but as long as they don't, the government has the monopoly of force. If it doesn't then the government doesn't function. Your second paragraph presumes democracy which isn't the only form of government. For a recent example of a government losing the monopoly of force, see Libya. All governments of states have monopoly of force as long as they're functional, and when they don't, they stop working. So the people in fact do not have the monopoly of force unless they bring down the government first (creating anarchy).
Plenty of governments have functioned without a monopoly on force. Not so much in modern times, though. For example, the Paterfamilias of a Roman family could execute his children.
|
|
|
It has only been a couple days into his week-long international tour, and Mitt Romney's has managed to alienate an entire city of people and make himself a laughingstock.
And England is supposed to be the easy leg of the trip. It's like the plot of Will Ferrell movie!
Without the protective bubble of right-wing media, the rabid English media are simply pouncing on what is obvious to most international observers of the election -- that Romney is a phoney, weird, insulated rich guy that thinks he's way more popular than he actually is.
It's nuts.
Foreigners hated George W. Bush, but at least George had street smarts. He dodged those shoes like a ninja.
|
Dance, Mitt, dance!
[tap tap tappity tap tap ...]
|
How do you screw up Britain??? They went to Iraq with us ffs!
Can you imagine what would happen if he toured Greece? Or Turkey? It'd probably be an international incident. Maybe in Israel he'll propose a one state solution...
|
On July 27 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
How do you screw up Britain??? They went to Iraq with us ffs!
Can you imagine what would happen if he toured Greece? Or Turkey? It'd probably be an international incident. Maybe in Israel he'll propose a one state solution...
It's guaranteed Mitt will pander to the hardliners in Israel. He has to show how much he loves Israel more than Obama.
|
On July 27 2012 15:43 Defacer wrote:It has only been a couple days into his week-long international tour, and Mitt Romney's has managed to alienate an entire city of people and make himself a laughingstock. And England is supposed to be the easy leg of the trip. It's like the plot of Will Ferrell movie! Without the protective bubble of right-wing media, the rabid English media are simply pouncing on what is obvious to most international observers of the election -- that Romney is a phoney, weird, insulated rich guy that thinks he's way more popular than he actually is. It's nuts. Foreigners hated George W. Bush, but at least George had street smarts. He dodged those shoes like a ninja.
Because clearly the opinion of a different country matters to someone running for president of the US. Would we like to have a competition for all the allies Obama has outright insulted or snubbed?
|
On July 27 2012 22:03 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 15:43 Defacer wrote:It has only been a couple days into his week-long international tour, and Mitt Romney's has managed to alienate an entire city of people and make himself a laughingstock. And England is supposed to be the easy leg of the trip. It's like the plot of Will Ferrell movie! Without the protective bubble of right-wing media, the rabid English media are simply pouncing on what is obvious to most international observers of the election -- that Romney is a phoney, weird, insulated rich guy that thinks he's way more popular than he actually is. It's nuts. Foreigners hated George W. Bush, but at least George had street smarts. He dodged those shoes like a ninja. Because clearly the opinion of a different country matters to someone running for president of the US. Would we like to have a competition for all the allies Obama has outright insulted or snubbed?
Please do. Which of our allies has Obama outright insulted or snubbed? And please provide links.
If you think that in this day and age we should not consider how we are percieved in the world, you're not thinking very hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/j0Rjw.jpg)
