In 1919 at the end of what was then the most murderous war and
human history, the German social scientist, mocks Weber issued an
article in which he defined the state as the entity that
successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate, use of
violence in the enforcement of its order.
That is only the state can put you in prison, only the state
can kill you for violating its laws.
Only the state can go to war with other states Larkin.
What is government? And why are you anti-government
government is the notion that certain political rituals,
whether it's elections are appointments or whatever else
can actually dystopia upon a select group of human beings,
the Right to rule. It's not just about the ability
to control. Lots of people, you know, if
they have a gun, might have the ability to control their
neighbor by force. That doesn't make them
government government is the exercise of authority, meaning
the right to rule which never actually exists.
The right is imagined. The thugs are real.
The guns are real. The violence is very real, all
too real, but the right to do it the authority to do, it is
always July. So the problem is not the thing
over there called government. It is the fact that people view
it as government as a thing that actually has the right to
coercively control us. And that's why I talked about
the fact that those people in there, guns are not actually the
problem, the belief system, and people imagining that there is
such thing as a legitimate, you know, rightful ruling class.
That is the problem, Mark. What is government?
And why do you not support? The legitimacy of government, or
a state government is a false and illusory, religious belief.
I would go even further. And say that government is a
cult. It is a cult belief system
because the definition of a cult is a religious belief that is
actually harmful to members that are not is its Believers or
adherence. And the basic belief structure
of those who believe in government is that there is
such. Such a thing called Authority
that is vested in man. And that is entirely rooted in
the concept of violence, which is the initiation of harmful
Behavior toward other beings that are exercising their rights
because of the commands or demands of a ruling class, that
call themselves, the legislators or lawmakers that want to
impose, their will violently upon other beings.
Coercively. Violently upon other beings and
therefore, restrain their rights.
That's what government is. Me and ultimately, if you really
take what I just said there and condense it down.
It comes down to three. Simple words, government is
slavery. The realm of biology and it is
also completely invalid in the realm of Ethics.
Is that the argument for statelessness, right?
That if you say, well, there are some human beings who have the
right and the obligation to initiate the use of force
against others, which is the government and its police, and
its military and so on. Whereas other people have no
possible Right to initiate, the use of force against others
because they can't go around killing and raping and stealing
and motoring. And so on, then you have
created. A category called Humanity which
has opposite moral requirements or demands and that is invalid
logically. So there would be an argument to
say that, you know free speech and statelessness are certainly
the morally and logically consistent ideals for Humanity.
And anybody who creates artificial oppositional
categories, under the same conceptual umbrella is making a
terrible terrible mistake. What is the state and what is
it? Not the state is a ruling class
that claims to have the Monopoly on violence, the right to do to
us. What we would not be allowed to
do to each other. So this this state is is
necessarily an institution that can that can impose violence
against you? Take your property.
Take your children. Take your life.
Draft. You tax, you regulate you
threaten you with violence. So if you, if you don't comply,
we can't do that with each other.
In fact, if I came up to you and did anything that state does to
every day. I would get arrested.
So that's what the state is. It is, it is not.
An institution that enforces rules.
Okay. We're surrounded by institutions
that have rules. I just got back from Cancun
where I went to a private Resort, the rules, in those
private Resort where ridiculous. I mean, just over the top,
right? So, like I tried to go to dinner
that he can't believe it, but they rejected me on grounds of
didn't compose a dress code. Keep in mind.
I had a tie on and a jacket at and and, you know, everything
the difference was that I was wearing loafers and It's down to
my knees. Well, they did not allow shorts
and the restaurants, otherwise that, so they refused entry for
me. I couldn't believe it in a
restaurant and a resort where I had paid to be.
So I had to go back to my room and put on pants, you know, and
then they, let me write in, but you see those?
That was a rule, but I had agreed to comply with that rule
by virtue of Of being in that Resort and and they let me into
the resort because I paid to be there.
So it's still all voluntary rules are inevitable and all of
society. Now why would happen if I said
no? Damn it?
I want a table. Well, a bodyguard would have
come in and said, I'm sorry. So you can't do this and
shuffled me to my room and if I complain, whether said I'm
sorry, would have to leave the hotel, so they kick me out, but
they're not actually killing me, right?
They're kicking me out of the hotel.
They're ending their contractual exchange with me because I
stopped complying with the contract.
That is not the way the state deals with us.
So private rules are just part of life and that is not the same
thing as the state. This Is very difficult for
people to understand, actually, but when you when you go to a,
you know, the gym and they say there's there's you have to
where you can't scream while you lift up, don't barbells and you
continue to do it, then they're going to end your gym membership
and kick you out, right? But that's not, that's not the
same thing as coercion. That's the end of a contractual
relationship. But here's the thing.
The state never makes a contract with us, right?
So, so they can, Talk about social contracts and that kind
of nonsense. But but none of it's actually
true. It's actually a relationship
rooted in violence rather than Choice.
Anyways, the government is the subset of a society, which
claims to have a legitimate Monopoly on the use of force a
legitimate Monopoly on the right to make fundamental rules.
And also has sufficient physical power to actually back up that
Monopoly, right? So that's why I look like a
failed State, like we might have had in Somalia.
You in the late 80s, would be something where there might be a
group that claims to have Monopoly, but they're not
actually able to maintain it. So the government sort of
failed, in that sense. So, government is a group of
people subset that has Monopoly of force and makes rules and him
and actually imposes. Those rules upon others.
That's not a perfect definition because, of course, lots of
rules, Come about through. Nongovernmental means there's
all sorts of private governance, even under states, where there
are governments, but the states claim to have this fundamental
law making power and they have the ability to back it up.
It's not the, it's not the government's, not the name.
We give to the things that we do together.
We do all sorts of things together.
Together without government, government is the name that we
give to the people with the guns, whether that's good or
bad. Is an open question, but that's
fundamentally. What a government is sure.
Yeah. That's what makes it a unique
institution. You talk about two things in
this book, Authority and legitimacy.
What are of what is Authority and legitimacy?
Good, it's worth noting for people who I say, I say this in
that book. I say to know when all else
fails book the terms, Authority and legitimacy are used quite
frequently by political philosophers, but they're not
perfectly standardized. So I use a particular way, but
everyone agrees upon is that government's claim to have two
special moral powers or moral properties.
So one is it, government's claim that they have the ability in
the permission to create rules and enforce?
Those rules with violence call. I use the word legitimacy to
refer. That legitimacy means the
permissibility of using violence to do something.
And we're talking about government legitimacy, the
permissibility of using violence and other kinds of aggressive
course, of means to force compliance with rules that you
make. So, that's legitimacy of
authority, is supposed to refer to the idea of when they issue a
command or an edict, a law or regulation.
You have an obligation in virtue of them, issuing the command to
follow it. So, it's very important that
when you ask, is there a duty to obey the law?
You're asking is there Authority.
Preity. Does that government have
authority over you? And it's important to note that
you could have an obligation to obey the law but not because it
is the law and that in which case, it's not Authority.
So, if I, if I say right now, i j Brennan hereby declare myself
to be the one and true emperor of the planet Earth.
And I Now command, all of you, all of you watching, never to
commit murder. Well, you actually have an
obligation to do the thing that I said, avoid committing murder,
but you don't have that obligation because I said, so
you don't owe it to me or, oh, it's other.
To listen to me per se. My command is sort of morally
inert. So in contrast, people who
believe in the idea of an obligation to obey the law per
se think that when certain government agents are actors or
bodies issue commands or laws, you have to obey that law
because they said, so they cause you to have an obligation.
They might add an additional source of out like if the
government commands you not to murder and they think you had a
pre-existing obligation, not to murder plus.
Now you have an obligation to murder because the government
Ed. So you have two different
grounds for it, or it might be in some cases.
You didn't have any obligation at all until you were so
commanded, you know, the military officer had no
obligation to attack another country until he was told to do.
So by his Superior. I think you are privatizing.
Something that is what essentially sets a nation-state
apart which is the Monopoly on on violence and to To to set
those kinds of precedents. I think will lead us over the
long term into the some some troubled water.
Now, what is government? So there's a very famous
definition of government due to Max Weber.
Max. Weber is basically the founder
of Sociology and he defined government as defined the state
as quote, a human community that successfully claims the Monopoly
of the legitimate use of physical Force within a given
territory. Now as a side, terminological
note people in political philosophy, use the word state
interchangeably with Mint in the United States.
People. Sometimes use the word state to
refer to, you know, like the state of Colorado.
But in political philosophy, when we say that, we mean the
government in general. Okay.
Now there might be some problems with Vapors definition.
You might notice that there are plenty of legitimate use of
physical force, that don't involve the government.
So if somebody attacks you and you physically defend yourself,
that's a legitimate use of physical Force.
Now, what Faber would probably say is, yeah, but that's it.
Only, it's only considered legitimate because the state
authorizes it because you're legally authorized to defend
yourself in such a situation. But, you know, that's a little
bit questionable because most people think it's legitimate.
Even if the government hadn't, authorized it, however, be that
as it may, there are two key attributes of the state.
That favorite talks about that are important, and that are
widely accepted there that the state is monopolistic and that
it's coercive. So it's widely agreed.
Whether or not you accept exactly, Vapors definition.
It's widely agreed. That the government is coercive.
In other words. It IT issues commands to people
and it forces them to obey them. It doesn't simply ask you to
obey. Its directives.
There's a threat that some armed officers will come and do
something to you. If you don't obey their
commands, it's also widely agreed that the state is
monopolistic. In other words.
It's a kind of organization that does not allow.
Now competitors. So if you try to set up a
competing organization that does the same things that the
government does, the government will send on demand to forcibly
shut you down. If you try to set up your own
police force, or your own court system where you try to make
your own laws, anyone, if anyone of it other than the government
does that, then the government will forcibly shut them down.
So, that's the Monopoly aspect mode.
When we are truly free. Doesn't mean there won't be any
evil in the world. In fact, a stateless society is
a recognition of the fact that evil exists.
And the first place that evildoers go is to the state to
gain control over the state, right?
If human beings are all good. We don't need to state if human
beings are all evil. We can't afford the state if
human beings are. Mostly evil and only somewhat
good. Then the mostly evil people vote
for Democratic policies that overwhelm and subjugate the good
people. If people are mostly good and
only somewhat evil, which is my belief, then the good people
become the tax livestock controlled by the evil people
who swarmed to the state to get control over the good.
There is no scenario. Of any add mixture of Good and
Evil which justifies the existence of the state.
The state is a giant magnet. Four monsters in human form.