[Dragaera] States and violence (was Re: OT: Ray Bradbury)

[Jerry Friedman]

--- Philip Hart <philiph at slac.stanford.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> 
> > Philip Hart wrote:
> >> A state of course has a monopoly on violence.
> >>
> > "Claims", possibly; although in most countries ("state" in this
> > discussion generally meaning the government of a country) violence is
> > allowed as an individual recourse in cases of self-defense, for
> example,
> > so in those cases the state isn't even *claiming* a monopoly.
> 
> 
> Oh, they'll loan it out briefly as long as they get it back - and only
> in 
> cases where it's been stolen already.

It would be a lot more accurate to say that many states have
been working toward the kind of control of violence that could
be described, not too misleadingly, as a monopoly.  But I'll
be surprised if anyone tells me that the Sumerian or the Greek
city-states, or the kingdoms of medieval Europe, even considered
regulating fights arising from private quarrels, or parents'
punishment of children.

I don't remember anyone in /Dragon/ even imagining that the
Empire might have anything to say about the war.  According
to the "monopoly" definition, that means the Empire is not
a state.  However, it is a state according to dictionary
definitions (not to mention the way I use the word and the
way I'm used to seeing and hearing it).

Jerry Friedman


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
that gives answers, not web links. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC