In 1932, some 17,000 largely unemployed veterans of WWI marched on Washington to demand payment of their promised war bonus, albeit earlier than agreed. President Hoover ordered the Army to attack the marchers and their families. The names of the officers who did the dirty deed we now know well for later exploits: Gen. MacArthur, Major Eisenhower, Major Patton. Patton ordered in a second tank attack after being expressly forbidden by the president, he was so gung ho to attack army veterans. Anyone who goes through the military academies knows this history, and the message is clear: if you desire advancement, exercise violence against US citizens.
About 100 years ago Max Weber defined the modern state as a entity with a monopoly on violence within a given territory. Gewaltmonopol des Staates. Violence in essence is “might makes right” and a monopoly on violence is a monopoly on “right.”
Now it does not matter if some cracker named Max comes up with some definition, what matters is if people subscribed to it, integrate it, make it theirs.
Anyone who has studied modern history must know Weber’s definition, and certainly Weber is core curriculum for anyone who goes after a master’s in public administration. Weber’s essay is from his work “Politics as Vocation.” Even a political lightweight hack like
Obama throws out Weber casually, and when he does, the right wing is shocked, shocked at the idea, as though Obama thought it up, as though they have never heard such a thing before.
Now this definition has been operational for over a century, and was merely a re-statement of the obvious. In Western Civilization, there was, in the vacuum after Rome’s fall, a struggle between the divine right of the church and the temporal rights of society, which ended up weirdly with the divine right of the states. Right wing Christians in particular love the state, and subscribe to it with their blasphemous creed (pledge of allegiance) and idolatry (the flag), in spite of the fact that Weber, in these very lectures, pointed out a Christian man cannot be a modern statesman, a good citizen. (Which cracks me up when they go on about how Moslems cannot be good citizens).
Definitions of the state that serve the powers that be will be the definitions that get adopted by those very powers.
A fundamental problem the modern state has is legitimacy. There is no warrant in natural law for violence, and freedom by definition is freedom from violence. Religious scruples are based on voluntary cooperation, so there is essentially no warrant for governmental violence in religion.
But people say there has to be a disinterested party to curb the escalating violence of private action, a way to keep revenge and grudge killings in check. I doubt it, but in any event, that premise does not support that government be essentially violent.
And to the contrary, there is, in religious scruple the “eye for an eye” rules, which seem barbaric to us, but in practice were quite clever. Whose eye..? Normally that of the poor and dispossessed who tend to be valued cheaply by the rich and powerful. If and when a rich person caused a poor person to lose an eye, the poor fellow had the right to demand the eye of a rich person. Now, the rich person immediately sets about arriving at a price at which the poor person will forgo his right to the rich person’s eye. In this way the free market subjective value and relative conditions are at play... no judges, juries, prescriptive laws, etc, plus a way to limit the damage done from grudge and revenge actions.
And again, right wing Christians live in abject error that Moslems will force Sharia law, and eye for an eye, on US Courts. Abject fear of a law that was ordained by the God of the Christians (and Jews, and Moslems.)
Ancient Rome never defined it self as a monopoly on violence, but on freedom, like USA originally. Of course this is problematic for a society that permitted slavery, like USA originally, but a monopoly on violence would have been anathema to both Romans and the Founding Fathers. USA was unique in that its constitution assumed slavery would eventually disappear, but the USA war between the states resulted in slavery being permitted as a constitutional right in USA. This is not just some lacunae, it was exploited widely after the war between the states and is in practice today.
Because of this definition, the modern western state is illegitimate. But the powers that be, judges, lawyers, cops all take this definition very seriously, and are ever expanding the defense thereof.
So we have gun control laws, so we have the supreme court saying we may not resist illegal arrest, so we have no one in responsible position curbing suspension of habeas corpus, illegal war, domestic spying, torture... why? Because ultimately might makes right.
I am quoted over at
LewRockwell.com about a cop I assisted writing his memoirs. I’ll let him tell his story when his book comes out, and I’ll review the book at that time. But in addition to that story I relate how on his first day out of the academy, while on patrol, his FTO pulled over, brought him around to the trunk of the patrol car, opened it and showed this rookie heroin, pills and marijuana. The FTO said to this rookie “I plant this on a$$#0!*$... “ The rookie kept his eyes open and his mouth shut. Soon enough, this rookie was breaking laws himself.
The police claim there is a thin blue line between us and chaos: the police. This is nonsense since there is the necessary and sufficient private violence in anarchy to keep chaos in check. But nonsense or not, both the left and right love violence, and the monopoly thereof, and will never relinquish the right.
So when a cop guns down an artist from behind on a clear sunny day without provocation of any kind, even though the police deem it an unjustified shooting, the cop goes scot-free. The police say his actions are unwarranted, so they take no responsibility. The county prosecutor says there is nothing in the law that lets him prosecute the cop. One wrongful death (murder) and no one is responsible.
Well, the police who trained the cop, armed him, and supervised him certainly are. The first officer on the scene, with no knowledge of the situation, is heard stating “You did the right thing.” Naturally. Any cop who kills anyone at any time did the right thing, since by definition the right is reserved by government, and if it exercises that right, it is right. (In spite of the fact various police officers are dismissed occasionally for “dishonesty,” this officer was not dismissed at all, let alone for killing someone unjustifiably.
It does not matter if a police officer never takes a bribe, never uses violence, never breaks the law, his every interaction with the public is backed by violence, and even if he disdains it, he merely calls for back-up, where plenty of violence is available. In a state that defines itself as a monopoly on violence, no government worker is legitimate.
An excellent review of how the courts do the bidding of the powers that be, regardless of the constitution, is the book by Mortin Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1789 - 1860. I’ll need to read his follow on book to follow the expansion of state violence in law, but for now I can highly recommend Horwitz’s book.
This might makes right is in essence paganism, complete with human sacrifice as a key component. The left demands child sacrifice (abortion), and the right demands human sacrifice (adults with skin brown or darker.) Both attribute a lack of humanity to the permission to kill. With the left unborn children are not human, to the right (and I here Christians say this) adults are not innocent like the preborn are. Oh.
Both expressly explain that these deaths are necessary to preserve our way of life.
Overseas we wish to effect nation-building, so we bring this monopoly on violence to some 180 countries around the world presently. Peoples object. The second attack on the world trade center was a counter-attack against the USA by Saudi Arabians outraged by USA occupation of their lands. We were not told this although the CIA and Osama bin Laden expressly said so, and the subsequent 911 commission found it to be the case.
But when 9-11 happened, the first question was “why?” and the system was inundated with the false witness: “they hate our freedom.” Many people of good will, not knowing the facts, accepted this answer, and succumbed to red meat racism. No principle need be maintained, all options are acceptable, anyone who disagrees is a traitor or coward or both. The mischaracterization was indecent. The failure to offer a proper explanation denied us the chance to review our policies. it left us with a wide swathe of implacable enemies of Islam.
Now, many people have come to hate the state, and our law enforcement officials assure us “domestic terrorism” is our gravest threat. The OKC building bombing was a direct reaction to the Waco immolation. Violence begets violence, but violence to overthrow this system is absurd, since the system is based on violence. Those who advocate the same do not want change, they merely want to be the ones wielding the monopoly on violence.
And what is missed is when it comes to wielding violence, the revolutionaries have no idea who they are dealing with. There are countless army majors chomping at the bit to lay waste American men, women, children, as a career move.
And keep in mind, very many “resistance movements” discover that the person in their midst who so very much urged violence was in fact a government agent.
The only effective way of combating violence is through nonviolence, and the goal should b a polity grounded in freedom, freedom from interference, freedom to act, without force or fraud.
So there is a goal, and there is a means, but neither is in play. Nor for that matter, should it be widely offered would it be welcomed. People want their govt. (1 Samuel 8) As long as violence is visited on others they could care less. As the children roasted to death in Waco, most Americans blamed the Branch Davidians.
We do make exemptions for non cooperators, such as the Amish... but we need a bigger area since the violence is getting far worse. We need a Hong Kong within the United States. A place where our birthright can maintain until the illegitimate system runs its course and caves in on itself. Like Ireland did for European culture. Like Hong Kong did for Communist China..
