Advocated by the paper in Richmond.
Republicans and Democrats have lamented the frequency of violent rhetoric in politics. Fewer seem to have regrets about the actual use of violence itself....I would contest the claim of government to a monopoly on the use of force; either that, or recognize that all citizens end up having a role to play, as citizens, in the governance of the nation. Nevertheless, there is broadly speaking a good point to be made here.
But what about violence by the state? Liberals and conservatives alike often embrace it as a means to an end they desire.
Government, as Max Weber famously put it, is distinguished from other social organizations by its claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. A church or club might invite you to join, but cannot conscript you as government can. A developer cannot take your property by eminent domain; only government can. Acme might try to persuade you to buy widgets through advertising. A gay-rights group might try to coerce Acme to adopt gay-friendly personnel policies by organizing a boycott of Acme's products. But Acme cannot make you buy widgets at the point of a gun, and gay-rights groups cannot change Acme's employee policies by kidnapping the CEO's daughter.
Acme must rely on your consenting however grudgingly to buy its widgets, and the rights group must rely on other people consenting to join their boycott. Only the government can make you buy its products on pain of imprisonment. (Just ask actor Wesley Snipes, currently doing a three-year stretch for tax evasion.) Only government can force you to "boycott" products it declares off-limits, such as heroin, and arrest you if you don't.
The debate over the size and scope of government, then, is an argument over when to use violence to change things and circumstances consensual activity cannot.
No comments:
Post a Comment