Jeff, I feel no need to show you an anarcho-cap logic since I'm not anarcho-cap.

@Thuc: Right. And states exist through the will of the public.

@Liar: Show me an anarcho-syndicalist, -communist, -socialist, -Somalist, -GaltGulchist, -SovereignCitizenist, -Tentherist, -idealist, -pragmatist, -takeyourpickist society.

monopoly of violence? hahaha what's that? the right to hit you and you not hit back?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=monopoly+on+violence

thanks for googling it for me kasimax. can I have to monopoly of violence against you in return?

monopoly on violence means that not just anyone is allowed to be armed or to attack other people. those who are not allowed to do so, or those who break the rules in other ways, will be apprehended, through the use of violence, if necessary.

it of course does contain the inherent problem, that has been pointed out, that the group who holds and maintains the monopoly on violence may sometimes use it in unjust ways (Mike Brown, e.g.). But, it is better than constant war.

And if the monopoly on violence can be controlled by the public, it will serve the public, which is the real goal - the only realistic chance of something resembling world peace.

Because at least if it is the government that has the monopoly on violence who is doing the oppressing, the people can rise up to institute reform, and hopefully the military would have been instituted from the beginning with a culture of "your first duty is to the people, the masses, not your superior officer." but if there is no government doing that at all, it will just be rival groups in battle for power.

And, naturally, "rival groups in battle for power" is a sadly accurate way to describe the current state of international relations.

The pleasant thing about having the current situation of... I guess you could call it an oligopoly of violence... is that if some of the competition go bad there are better organisations that can take over. If you have a monopoly of violence, and the people in charge of that monopoly decide they'd rather do things their own way, you're sort of screwed for eternity.

No you're not. Monopolies on violence within nations are constantly reformed or overthrown. Straw man.

Well since this is an utopia, I give no right of monopoly of violence to no one.
The state has no right to apply violence to it's citizens. It has the duty to counter the violent behaviours of members of the society.
The mass control forces of Police, or military or whatever, are illegal since no one gave them the right to hit citizens that don't commit crime. And of course anyone has the right to self-defence, so people have the right to hit back police.
In a liberal world there's no space for monopolies right?

"The state has no right to apply violence to it's citizens."

It does have that right if you yourself have become violent against a legitimate government.

In dictatorships, tyrannies or anything similar of course there's monopoly of violence. Are you sure you want to live in such society?

The keyword is of course "legitimate"

Apei8,

Just in case you weren't aware, "monopoly on violence" describes EVERY functional society, whether oppressed or free. It's another word for "government." You yourself live under one, unless you live in a war zone, where the monopoly is being contested.

Something you didn't understand from my message I guess.
I said that the state is obliged to counter face the violence. Not cause the violence itself. If it's not like that, then it causes trouble to the society and it's tyrannic. It's not my fault if all states act like that, by maintaining special forces for "mobs".
Saudi Arabia or the ISIS state are bright examples of what you justify. Nothing more than governments who make use of their monopoly of violence. Enjoy

All goes back to the consent of the governed to allow the state to have a monopoly on violence against other states in return for protection and fair treatment.

This is why any anarchist "society" is doomed to fail. They simply cannot provide a good answer for self-preservation where individual rights are maintained.

In other words, some type of democracy is best, even in a bastardized form.

Have you seen a lot of anarchist societies?

Laughing about the the term "monopoly of violence", which is the excuse of dictators, doesn't mean anarchy though. It means that the state, and a lot more the temporary representatives of it, have no right to intrude the personal rights of the citizens. They must respect them or erase the "public duty of state preservation" which means revolt and settle new state.

Just because there is a government, doesn't mean it's a good government. ISIS, Saudi Arabia, these are not legitimate governments.

I daresay even the United States is not.

Jeff Kuta:

I agree that democracy is best, but it must be MADE to work. A "democracy" that does not respond to the will of the people is no such thing. It is the duty of the people to press for reform, when the government does not respond through established channels.

Which sucks, because it means we have our work cut out for us, huh? But no one ever said life was easy.

Of course Saudi Arabia is legitimate state, old member of the UN, and approved from all international organizations. No one blamed them for not respecting women or immigrants for example. It has every right to punish with death a woman who didn't hide her hair outside, or an immigrant who didn't renew his papers on time. They don't have a right to defend for their lives. Monopoly of violence...
Similarly in USA you can have ruined CV because you protested outside Wall Street. You are not sentenced to death, just you are thrown out of college, you can't work for public, you have a major minus for any job application. And you were not even violent.
Isn't that unjustified violence on behalf of US government? Or it has the right to do so?

anyway, we are off-topic
I'm not going to write more here

Most democracies do respond to the will of the people, just not in ways that a large number of their citizens would prefer. Tyranny of the majority, ya know. But really, there's not much tyranny and mostly just griping by the losers of elections, or those who *feel* disenfranchised.

Anyway, "History is written by the winners, baby..."

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

"It has every right to punish with death a woman who didn't hide her hair outside, or an immigrant who didn't renew his papers on time."

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/v-q1JspC-4XQND01-mT3ARgfW0rDOL_Y0yprLgOKpr4tx4GErcX_7jrDt3v_OtECkOIbXYQYDUCUkdNIih8rBZs=w320-h240-nc

yo, just because you're in the UN doesn't mean your government is legitimate, lol

Being internationally recognized ain't the same as being a legitimate authority

@Jeff Kuta,

actually, the countries that go "democracy" in general do not exercise a tyranny of the majority, but rather a tyranny of the minority - the economic elite.

go by "democracy"*