What is 'the State' or 'the Government'?

In 1919 at the end of what was then the most murderous war and human history, the German social scientist, mocks Weber issued an article in which he defined the state as the entity that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate, use of violence in the enforcement of its order. That is only the state can put you in prison, only the state can kill you for violating its laws. Only the state can go to war with other states Larkin.

What is government? And why are you anti-government government is the notion that certain political rituals, whether it's elections are appointments or whatever else can actually dystopia upon a select group of human beings, the Right to rule. It's not just about the ability to control. Lots of people, you know, if they have a gun, might have the ability to control their

neighbor by force. That doesn't make them government government is the exercise of authority, meaning the right to rule which never actually exists. The right is imagined. The thugs are real. The guns are real. The violence is very real, all too real, but the right to do it the authority to do, it is always July. So the problem is not the thing

over there called government. It is the fact that people view it as government as a thing that actually has the right to coercively control us. And that's why I talked about the fact that those people in there, guns are not actually the problem, the belief system, and people imagining that there is such thing as a legitimate, you know, rightful ruling class. That is the problem, Mark. What is government?

And why do you not support? The legitimacy of government, or a state government is a false and illusory, religious belief. I would go even further. And say that government is a cult. It is a cult belief system because the definition of a cult is a religious belief that is actually harmful to members that are not is its Believers or adherence. And the basic belief structure of those who believe in government is that there is such. Such a thing called Authority

that is vested in man. And that is entirely rooted in the concept of violence, which is the initiation of harmful Behavior toward other beings that are exercising their rights because of the commands or demands of a ruling class, that call themselves, the legislators or lawmakers that want to impose, their will violently upon other beings. Coercively. Violently upon other beings and therefore, restrain their rights.

That's what government is. Me and ultimately, if you really take what I just said there and condense it down. It comes down to three. Simple words, government is slavery. The realm of biology and it is

also completely invalid in the realm of Ethics. Is that the argument for statelessness, right? That if you say, well, there are some human beings who have the right and the obligation to initiate the use of force against others, which is the government and its police, and its military and so on. Whereas other people have no possible Right to initiate, the use of force against others because they can't go around killing and raping and stealing and motoring. And so on, then you have

created. A category called Humanity which has opposite moral requirements or demands and that is invalid logically. So there would be an argument to say that, you know free speech and statelessness are certainly the morally and logically consistent ideals for Humanity. And anybody who creates artificial oppositional categories, under the same conceptual umbrella is making a terrible terrible mistake. What is the state and what is

it? Not the state is a ruling class that claims to have the Monopoly on violence, the right to do to us. What we would not be allowed to do to each other. So this this state is is necessarily an institution that can that can impose violence against you? Take your property. Take your children. Take your life. Draft. You tax, you regulate you threaten you with violence. So if you, if you don't comply, we can't do that with each other.

In fact, if I came up to you and did anything that state does to every day. I would get arrested. So that's what the state is. It is, it is not. An institution that enforces rules. Okay. We're surrounded by institutions that have rules. I just got back from Cancun where I went to a private Resort, the rules, in those private Resort where ridiculous. I mean, just over the top, right? So, like I tried to go to dinner that he can't believe it, but they rejected me on grounds of

didn't compose a dress code. Keep in mind. I had a tie on and a jacket at and and, you know, everything the difference was that I was wearing loafers and It's down to my knees. Well, they did not allow shorts and the restaurants, otherwise that, so they refused entry for me. I couldn't believe it in a restaurant and a resort where I had paid to be. So I had to go back to my room and put on pants, you know, and then they, let me write in, but you see those?

That was a rule, but I had agreed to comply with that rule by virtue of Of being in that Resort and and they let me into the resort because I paid to be there. So it's still all voluntary rules are inevitable and all of society. Now why would happen if I said no? Damn it? I want a table. Well, a bodyguard would have

come in and said, I'm sorry. So you can't do this and shuffled me to my room and if I complain, whether said I'm sorry, would have to leave the hotel, so they kick me out, but they're not actually killing me, right? They're kicking me out of the hotel. They're ending their contractual exchange with me because I stopped complying with the contract. That is not the way the state deals with us. So private rules are just part of life and that is not the same

thing as the state. This Is very difficult for people to understand, actually, but when you when you go to a, you know, the gym and they say there's there's you have to where you can't scream while you lift up, don't barbells and you continue to do it, then they're going to end your gym membership and kick you out, right? But that's not, that's not the same thing as coercion. That's the end of a contractual relationship. But here's the thing.

The state never makes a contract with us, right? So, so they can, Talk about social contracts and that kind of nonsense. But but none of it's actually true. It's actually a relationship rooted in violence rather than Choice.

Anyways, the government is the subset of a society, which claims to have a legitimate Monopoly on the use of force a legitimate Monopoly on the right to make fundamental rules. And also has sufficient physical power to actually back up that Monopoly, right? So that's why I look like a failed State, like we might have had in Somalia.

You in the late 80s, would be something where there might be a group that claims to have Monopoly, but they're not actually able to maintain it. So the government sort of failed, in that sense. So, government is a group of people subset that has Monopoly of force and makes rules and him and actually imposes. Those rules upon others. That's not a perfect definition because, of course, lots of

rules, Come about through. Nongovernmental means there's all sorts of private governance, even under states, where there are governments, but the states claim to have this fundamental law making power and they have the ability to back it up. It's not the, it's not the government's, not the name. We give to the things that we do together. We do all sorts of things together. Together without government, government is the name that we give to the people with the guns, whether that's good or

bad. Is an open question, but that's fundamentally. What a government is sure. Yeah. That's what makes it a unique institution. You talk about two things in this book, Authority and legitimacy. What are of what is Authority and legitimacy? Good, it's worth noting for people who I say, I say this in that book. I say to know when all else fails book the terms, Authority and legitimacy are used quite frequently by political philosophers, but they're not

perfectly standardized. So I use a particular way, but everyone agrees upon is that government's claim to have two special moral powers or moral properties. So one is it, government's claim that they have the ability in the permission to create rules and enforce? Those rules with violence call. I use the word legitimacy to refer. That legitimacy means the permissibility of using violence to do something.

And we're talking about government legitimacy, the permissibility of using violence and other kinds of aggressive course, of means to force compliance with rules that you make. So, that's legitimacy of authority, is supposed to refer to the idea of when they issue a command or an edict, a law or regulation. You have an obligation in virtue of them, issuing the command to follow it. So, it's very important that when you ask, is there a duty to obey the law?

You're asking is there Authority. Preity. Does that government have authority over you? And it's important to note that you could have an obligation to obey the law but not because it is the law and that in which case, it's not Authority. So, if I, if I say right now, i j Brennan hereby declare myself to be the one and true emperor of the planet Earth. And I Now command, all of you, all of you watching, never to

commit murder. Well, you actually have an obligation to do the thing that I said, avoid committing murder, but you don't have that obligation because I said, so you don't owe it to me or, oh, it's other. To listen to me per se. My command is sort of morally

inert. So in contrast, people who believe in the idea of an obligation to obey the law per se think that when certain government agents are actors or bodies issue commands or laws, you have to obey that law because they said, so they cause you to have an obligation. They might add an additional source of out like if the government commands you not to murder and they think you had a pre-existing obligation, not to murder plus.

Now you have an obligation to murder because the government Ed. So you have two different grounds for it, or it might be in some cases. You didn't have any obligation at all until you were so commanded, you know, the military officer had no obligation to attack another country until he was told to do. So by his Superior. I think you are privatizing.

Something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart which is the Monopoly on on violence and to To to set those kinds of precedents. I think will lead us over the long term into the some some troubled water.

Now, what is government? So there's a very famous definition of government due to Max Weber. Max. Weber is basically the founder of Sociology and he defined government as defined the state as quote, a human community that successfully claims the Monopoly of the legitimate use of physical Force within a given territory. Now as a side, terminological note people in political philosophy, use the word state interchangeably with Mint in the United States.

People. Sometimes use the word state to refer to, you know, like the state of Colorado. But in political philosophy, when we say that, we mean the government in general. Okay. Now there might be some problems with Vapors definition. You might notice that there are plenty of legitimate use of physical force, that don't involve the government. So if somebody attacks you and you physically defend yourself, that's a legitimate use of physical Force.

Now, what Faber would probably say is, yeah, but that's it. Only, it's only considered legitimate because the state authorizes it because you're legally authorized to defend yourself in such a situation. But, you know, that's a little bit questionable because most people think it's legitimate. Even if the government hadn't, authorized it, however, be that as it may, there are two key attributes of the state.

That favorite talks about that are important, and that are widely accepted there that the state is monopolistic and that it's coercive. So it's widely agreed. Whether or not you accept exactly, Vapors definition. It's widely agreed. That the government is coercive. In other words. It IT issues commands to people and it forces them to obey them. It doesn't simply ask you to obey. Its directives. There's a threat that some armed officers will come and do

something to you. If you don't obey their commands, it's also widely agreed that the state is monopolistic. In other words. It's a kind of organization that does not allow. Now competitors. So if you try to set up a competing organization that does the same things that the government does, the government will send on demand to forcibly

shut you down. If you try to set up your own police force, or your own court system where you try to make your own laws, anyone, if anyone of it other than the government does that, then the government will forcibly shut them down. So, that's the Monopoly aspect mode.

When we are truly free. Doesn't mean there won't be any evil in the world. In fact, a stateless society is a recognition of the fact that evil exists. And the first place that evildoers go is to the state to gain control over the state, right? If human beings are all good. We don't need to state if human beings are all evil. We can't afford the state if human beings are. Mostly evil and only somewhat

good. Then the mostly evil people vote for Democratic policies that overwhelm and subjugate the good people. If people are mostly good and only somewhat evil, which is my belief, then the good people become the tax livestock controlled by the evil people who swarmed to the state to get control over the good. There is no scenario. Of any add mixture of Good and Evil which justifies the existence of the state. The state is a giant magnet. Four monsters in human form.