As was mentioned, it is the juxtaposition of this idea with "legitimacy" which gives the original essay its impact.
The normal condition of society, according to some current military writers, involves a whole range of violent actors, from religions to criminal gangs. Some words are meant to connote negativity given that they describe exclusively negative ideas or concepts.
It highlights juxtaposition of terms and ideas which make them stand out and gives them a novel quality in the essay. I have read a number of English translations and it is fairly clear from these that the skewed POV lies not in favour of Anarchists or American libertarians or individualists of any kind, but instead in favour of those who attempt to rationalize the violent acts of national entities.
Some scholars, however, diverge from Weber and, following the tradition set by Thomas Hobbesinstead argue that the ideal of the monopoly of violence concerns not only its control but also its use, such that the state is the sole actor that can legitimately wield violence except in case of immediate self-defense.
In order to maintain a secured environment, it is exceedingly important to have power over the use of force and the means of violence. The lessons of Edward Bernays have been well learned it would seem.
But that would be nit-picking. I will likely revert and call in moderation or have the page locked should you refuse to discus your changes again.
The main reason behind this distinctiveness is to portray politics as being disconnected from sadism and hostile behavior.
Relation to state capacity[ edit ] The capacity of a state is often measured in terms of its fiscal and legal capacity. It is important to note that the main idea here at the beginning of this essay is not the violence, but the characteristic of legitimacy claimed to underpin it.
In order to obtain their political goal and protect the community they are a representative of, these mutinous agencies opt to use military strategies. The pioneer of modern sociology, Max Weber, defined state as "a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" as qtd.
For the same reasons, the "monopoly" does not mean that only the government may use physical force, but that the state is that human community that successfully claims for itself to be the only source of legitimacy for all physical coercion or adjudication of coercion.
You make a valid point; he deliberately uses the term human community given his initial stated objective of trying to establish an acceptable baseline definition of what a "state" or national entity is exactly.
The Theory of Social and Economic Organization Would not this be an example of a state that had a monopoly on violence, but where it was not considered legitimate?? Materials from a study group at the London School of Economics also qualify.
The state with a monopoly on violence is a European concept. Moreover, the king and the landed nobility had to share power or compete with the Roman Catholic Church. He said "human community". As the use of the term legitimate underlines, this concept does not imply that the state is the only actor actually using violence but rather that it is the only actor that can legitimately authorize its use.
The legitimate state is composed of a number of different organizations who have a direct involvement in the armed conflict.
Pages have a good summary of the history of the concept - Hobbs, Weber, Marx, etc.
Using weasel words and euphemisms to soften the impact of terrible things in this world has, alas, become rather commonplace. Kossler also sees an economic dimension: The state monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force can be challenged by a number of nonstate actors such as political insurgents or terrorists or by state actors such as the military forces claiming autonomy from the state.
If this really is a section supported by due weight please start with solid sources, which address the issue in context. In addition to this, the number of private actors has extended tremendously.
I believe there may be a conflict here between the belief that the government and the people are the same thing and the belief that they are two separate things. The kids being born as I type now will no longer tolerate the society warping effect of such things in a few decades time.
Wright Mills and published by the Oxford University Press in Also see Violent non-state actor and asymmetrical warfare. In other words, without investing in troops, police, or some sort of enforcement mechanism, early states cannot enjoy the law and order or prosperity of more developed states.
It has been reported that many people decide to join an organization that is involved in an armed struggle due to several bigoted and unfair policies of the State. It also recognizes the euphemistic quality present in the entire idea.
It is not our job to research the topic and present our findings in the article. Anything else betrays an ignorance of the literature. RFPP if I am not around. Of course it does and it should! Perhaps I have not read enough Weber, but he does not seem to define state as an organization such as a government.
And of course the word violence has a negative connotation.In Syria, there are multiple groups fighting against the Ba'ath government, and using physical force to overthrow the government. In this sense, there is no clear monopoly on the use of physical force within the territory.
Both groups are fighting for the monopoly and the power. Chapter 1 American Gov't. STUDY. PLAY. What reasons did I give for saying Max Weber's definition of government as "a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force" is misleading for understanding American government?
To say that government exercises power over the people is to say that government can get the people to do what the. the use of physical force. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.
Note that 'territory' is one of the conditioned to obedience towards those masters who claim to be the bearers of legitimate power.
On the. We will write a custom essay sample on Government is the monopoly of legitimate use of physical power” specifically for you for only $ $/page. A governments with a legitimate claim to authority is a government with a rightful or justified claim to authority.
What are regulations? Rules made by bureaucratic agencies that have the force of law. State monopoly on violence, in political science and sociology, the concept that the state alone has the right to use or authorize the use of physical force.
It is widely regarded as a defining characteristic of the modern state. In his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (), the German.Download