Governments Monopoly on force Contradictory?

Political Philosophy
1

I am having some trouble going about tackling this counter from someone. I don’t think its so much the reasoning but the fact that their specific wording on the subject is causing me issues for some reason, could someone help me clarify this point?

In a debate thread regarding Minarchsim/Anarchism:

" Originally Posted by rgbell

The core question here is wether or not the government is necessary through its “monopoly on force” to protect individual rights. If that is the case then we need a form of minarchism, if not, a form of anarchism. I, as an Objectivist, obviously fall ont he minarchist side although I don’t like to term the situation that. I just call it Capitalism as I am under the belief that such is necessary for a proper capitalistic society perpetuate. While the NA principle is a good one overall, I think that, in general, libertarians don’t apply/view it as it should and this can lead to the suggestion of irrational political systems like anarcho-capitalism which I view as a contradiction in and of itself and a nice word for gang warfare."

"Originally Posted by Elutherian

To say a monopoly on force is necessary to protect individual rights is a contradictory statement. It is a right, of any individual, to do something of his own free will as long as he is not imposing force on another individual. To have a monopoly on force, through force, is to make illegal the act of one individual (citizen) to do something while legalizing it for another (government actors). This is neither compatible with equal rights before the law, nor is it compatable with individual rights of citizens to have the excercise of free will short of violent action. "

2

It looks like he’s equating private action with governmental action. As he put it “citizens” vs “government actors”.

From The Nature of Government:

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally

forbidden

; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally

permitted

."

-Ayn Rand

3

I assume the equality mantra comes from this (the famous second sentence from the Declaration of Independence):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

As you can see, it doesn’t say “equal rights before the law”, it says created equal, and endowed with certain rights, such as…

You can have laws that discriminate between government agents and ordinary citizens (among other things), without infringing on anyone’s rights, as long as those rights are defined as they are in the DOI, and by Ayn Rand. There is no contradiction there, as long as you don’t, out of the blue, make up a special rule designed specifically to be in contradiction with the principles of Capitalism, such as " all men are equal before the law, irrespective of their status as regular citizens, government agents, enemy combatants or convicted felons, two year old children, crazy people, etc.".

P.S. An easy way to defeat his argument woul be to ask where would the law, in his phrase “equal before the law”, come from. If he mention Congress, ask him why would Congress members be more equal than me, and create any laws that are more valid than my law: All roosters are to be killed by woodchippers!

4

I am having some trouble going about tackling this counter from someone.

He is equating “initiation of force” with “retaliatory force”. He sees them as one concept: “violent action”. He is package-dealing and he is wrong, they are not the same. One is a supreme moral and legal crime, the other is not only morally and legally proper but, if you want to stay alive, morally obligatory. It is the difference between murder and self defense.

It isn’t true that every rightful action must be devoid of force. If a murderer is threatening your life, you have the right to defend yourself.

Of course properly speaking, in the context of a civilized society, all human interaction must be free from force, therefore the use of force is outlawed. So if you are acting rationally and not initiating the use of force, then the government, properly, has no role in your life. But what if someone decides not to act rationally? What if someone violates your rights? Something has to be done. The only way to violate your rights is by the use of physical force and this is where the government steps in.

You retain the right to self defense but in a civilized society we must bring the use of retaliatory force under objective principles of law. Otherwise, whenever there is a dispute it will devolve into a fight. Eventually, as groups ally, you will degenerate to the unprincipled stance of “might makes right”.

Someone has to be the final arbiter of disputes and this is the proper purview of government, so long as it is guided by the principle of individual rights. And if it maintains a monopoly on the use of force with individual rights as its guiding principle, then it will properly say to all its citizens: “The initiation of force has been outlawed. We will leave you alone as long as you do not initiate force. If you initiate force against another, then we will stop you.” The government is acting as your agent of self defense.

There is no contradiction. Just as individual citizens should not initiate force, neither should the government. The government stops people from initiating force.

When there is no final arbiter of disputes, when the use of force is not brought under objective control, then you have a free-for-all. Its the rule of force versus the rule of law. Its the jungle versus civilization. Its anarchism versus capitalism.

There are many threads on the topic. Search for: “initiation of force”, “retaliatory force”, “anarchism”, “minarchism”.

5

He is equating “initiation of force” with “retaliatory force”. He sees them as one concept: “violent action”. He is package-dealing and he is wrong, they are not the same.

The line of argument was a bit hard to decipher, but I think the point he was trying to make was something else. I understood it to be an asking of the questions:

“Why is a citizen not ‘free’ to initiate retaliatory force, but a ‘government actor’ is? Doesn’t that make government actors ‘more free’ than citizens?”

If that is truly his question, then I think the passage I quoted (in my previous reply) from The Nature of Government answers that pretty succinctly. In addition there is this, from the same essay:

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force.

(i.e. That IS the

nature

of government.)

… and also …

This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

6

The line of argument was a bit hard to decipher, but I think the point he was trying to make was something else. I understood it to be an asking of the questions:

“Why is a citizen not ‘free’ to initiate retaliatory force, but a ‘government actor’ is? Doesn’t that make government actors ‘more free’ than citizens?”

If that is truly his question, then I think the passage I quoted (in my previous reply) from The Nature of Government answers that pretty succinctly.

Well, I guess we could just let the OP decide but the reason I replied was because I read the question differently than you and didn’t see my reading of it answered to my satisfaction.

I think rgbell identified the problem correctly in his first sentence:

The core question here is wether or not the government is necessary through its “monopoly on force” to protect individual rights.

Is government necessary? If so, what should it do? Anarchists say “no”. Libertarians say “force is force, none should be allowed, even to the government”. This is the unrealistic and contradictory stance.

I figured it out from Elutherian’s first sentence:

To say a monopoly on force is necessary to protect individual rights is a contradictory statement.

When someone says the idea of a “monopoly on force” is somehow contradictory I immediately think he is either a libertarian or an anarchist (in this context, essentially the same thing), but I may reserve judgment until I have further evidence – which came in the third sentence:

To have a monopoly on force, through force, is to make illegal the act of one individual (citizen) to do something while legalizing it for another (government actors).

It is clear to me that this person sees no difference between initiation of force and retaliatory force, no difference between the actions of a murderer and the act of a citizen or police officer shooting a murderer who is pointing a gun at them.

This is the fundamental point that needs clarification. Once it is agreed upon, then further examination of proper government actions can be discussed. But I’d be careful using this phrase to do so:

initiate retaliatory force

That can be very confusing.

7

The line of argument was a bit hard to decipher, but I think the point he was trying to make was something else. I understood it to be an asking of the questions:

“Why is a citizen not ‘free’ to initiate retaliatory force, but a ‘government actor’ is? Doesn’t that make government actors ‘more free’ than citizens?”

It is clear to me that this person sees no difference between initiation of force and retaliatory force, no difference between the actions of a murderer and the act of a citizen or police officer shooting a murderer who is pointing a gun at them.

This is the fundamental point that needs clarification. Once it is agreed upon, then further examination of proper government actions can be discussed. But I’d be careful using this phrase to do so: “initiate retaliatory force”

That can be very confusing.

Agreed… it is just how I characterized what I think was being asked. He’s saying force is force. So if it EVER can be justified then it is a contradiction to “let” government actors do it and not “let” private citizens do it. It ignores the fundamental purpose of government and it also ignores that people can serve as agents of government with both specific legal requirements and limitations on their actions.

There is no contradiction. I’d be interested to see what the person was really getting at and if the perceived contradiction has been eliminated in his mind. I would bet that you are correct in thinking that the underlying premise of the question is whether or not government is needed at all. But I’m just guessing there.

8

The only problem I see in this is the problem of how do you deal with secession (is it okay, when is it right, how can you do it, etc.), and in a similar vain, the creation of a government in the first place. For example, everyone did not say the Constitution was good with them back when it was ratified, so did they have a right to impose it one those who wanted to stay under the Articles of Confederation? After all, the nature of the state governments changed when transitioning from one to the other, and so can it really be said that the people in the states prior to ratification really “consented” to the actions of the state when it switched?

The problem, and possible contradiction, that I see, is that the only way I can think of to resolve this is to say “well, if you don’t like it, you can move.” Well, that’s what socialists say. I mean, do you really imply that as long as a nation’s borders are open to all goers (and comers) that you can change the government and its fine? If so, then why can’t the government undertake other activities too, like welfare (let’s assume they modified the Constitution to actually make such an action legal), since if you don’t like it, you can leave (and therefore, you are, by staying, agreeing to pay the taxes, and so are really agreeing to a sort of contract)? If you say that that is not right, then how do you defend anything like the switch from Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (and any other switch of government over any region, no matter how small, such as in secession or treaty)?

I don’t really have an answer to that question, I was hoping someone here might be able to shed some light on it. It was brought up during a discussion I was having with a so-called anarcho-capitalist, and I said I wasn’t sure how I would be able to respond.

9

I guess the rhetorical question asked by libertarians can be summed up as follows: “Is it OK to impose a rights-respecting form of society onto others?”

My answer to that is a definite and emphatic “YES!”

10

Government has the monopoly on retaliatory (and pre-emptive) force. Important distinction.

11

CapitalismForever,-

I’d rephrase your question to make it more simple, “Is it okay to liberate oppressed peoples?” I believe this is the same question, but your question is unnecessarily wordy. You ask is okay to impose a (rights-respecting) form of society on other people? Your language choices are provocative, but I can’t think of a good reason why that should be. We do want to impose (good)forms on people or we simply want to free oppressed people. Semantics, I know, but there is an art in diplomacy that isn’t superfluous, but is essential to convince people to agree with you.

I think monopoly of force is another instance of unfortunate language. The government grants monopolies to all sorts of industries all the time. It almost seems like every single industry. Whenever a new technology comes into existence, the first thing the government tries to do is monopolize it.

One should try to be simple, clear, and look beyond popular connotations and popular phrases to convey truth.

We the people, the individual entities are the only existing agents of force, moral or immoral. We organize into government agencies and establish laws so that we may be more objective in the dispensation of justice, but we can’t forget that the monopoly of force does not reside in a separate “entity”, “the government”. It is, according to my understanding of its use, by Rand and others, a phrase that refers to the commitment to solve our civil and political disputes publicly so that everyone can see and we can, as communities address our problems scientifically. It is not really so much that we, as individual citizens lose our agency as moral force (after all, there are no other agents of moral force in existence besides individual humans), but rather we want to cope with the criminal element in our midst as carefully and systematically as possible, while causing the least amount of risk to our individual persons.

-Opps, I meant to address must of that to everyone.

12

<snip> is {it} okay to impose a (rights-respecting) form of society on other people?

A paraphrase comes to mind from Atlas Shrugged:

We need to force people to be free.

A rights-respecting form of society arises from a rights-respecting mentalitied people.

I think monopoly of force is another instance of unfortunate language. The government grants monopolies to all sorts of industries all the time. It almost seems like every single industry. Whenever a new technology comes into existence, the first thing the government tries to do is monopolize it.

Monopolies arise from efficacy within production. Governments are not agencies of production. You are describing a govenment interveining into areas that should be outside the purveyance of government.

We the people, the individual entities are the only existing agents of force, moral or immoral. We organize into government agencies and establish laws so that we may be more objective in the dispensation of justice, but we can’t forget that the monopoly of force does not reside in a separate “entity”, “the government”. It is, according to my understanding of its use, by Rand and others, a phrase that refers to the commitment to solve our civil and political disputes publicly so that everyone can see and we can, as communities address our problems scientifically. It is not really so much that we, as individual citizens lose our agency as moral force (after all, there are no other agents of moral force in existence besides individual humans), but rather we want to cope with the criminal element in our midst as carefully and systematically as possible, while causing the least amount of risk to our individual persons.

Is this an example of being simple, clear, and looking beyond popular connotations and popular phrases in conveying your thoughts?

13

Dream Weaver, I agree with what you said. I think you’re indicating that you disagree with something I wrote, but since I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, I’m not sure how to reply.

Yes, I agree with what you said about monopolies, for instance. That’s why I think there are at least two meanings for the word. Objectivists, in talking about a monopoly (one-power) are talking about a dedication to resolving our differences and establishing one objective book of law that everyone can live with. Whereas the more common use of the word monopoly has negative connotations which reference what the government did to the railroads, or airplanes, or phone companies or etc etc.

See, if you go back and substitute “one power” for everyplace anyone wrote “monopoly”, I think it would be clear that the word doesn’t actually mean the abstract notions that people try to make it mean. That, to me, explains why different groups of people have different ideas about it. It is a “loose” word and I think it hinders the thinking and the communication process much more than it helps it.

EDIT: Wait, wait. You asked me a question, and I was dodging because I didn’t know what to say. Yes, I think that I wrote was VERY simple and clear. If you didn’t think so, why didn’t you ask me to clear something up? I think you implied that you disagreed, but you didn’t make any specific claim about where I went wrong. Make that claim, if you can. I want to know where I am going wrong, but at this point, since you didn’t, I’m going to assume that you couldn’t, because what I did write was simple, and clear.

EDIT: Well, now I’m not being fair. Obviously there is something you didn’t understand or agree with, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked that question. But what it is I’m not sure. I think this underscores my point. I think we agree, but are having trouble communicating.

14

Yes, I agree with what you said about monopolies, for instance. That’s why I think there are at least two meanings for the word. Objectivists, in talking about a monopoly (one-power) are talking about a dedication to resolving our differences and establishing one objective book of law that everyone can live with. Whereas the more common use of the word monopoly has negative connotations which reference what the government did to the railroads, or airplanes, or phone companies or etc etc.

Well, unless you are referring to the Milton Bradley game, a monopoly is pretty concise as the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something.

In the case of a commodity or service, the efficacy of those dealing in that arena is the reward for their diligence and attention to detail, providing that force or fraud is not involved in its acquisition.

Due to the nature of government, a monopoly on the use of retalitory (and in some cases pre-emptive) force serves to underscore the necessity to understand and relegate it by clearly identified and defined principles.

<snip>Yes, I think that I wrote was VERY simple and clear.<snip>Obviously there is something you didn’t understand or agree with<snip>

You are correct, in that I do not really understand what you are getting at in the referenced paragraph.

As in ethics, the first questions to ask are “Does man need a code of ethics?” and “If so, why?”. A key to understanding another’s politics can be acquired by their answer to the question: “Why do men need government?”. She answers this in the CUI Appendix with the following: “If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.”

15

No, I wasn’t talking about the Board Game. I’m sorry you have to ask.

Yes, I don’t disagree with the way you have defined monopoly. You only think you are disagreeing with me, because you don’t understand what I’m saying. I tried to restate what it means in plainer English, but you didn’t understand me. I want to be able to use the complete English language to argue for Objectivism.

Yes, a monopoly means exclusive control. It means one power to the exclusion of others. You say that government must have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. I agree. I think I understand that sentence and am able to restate it in ordinary language. You don’t have to use the word monopoly in order to think about these concepts. It isn’t an essential word. Now, you understand at least what I am claiming I hope and if you reread my first post I hope you will understand me better. Because and let me emphasis this. I don’t disagree with anything you have said. You are completely right in what you have said so far, in my judgment.

EDIT: It boils down to this. Saying that the government must have a retaliatory use on force is a very abstract statement. Not abstract because it is hard to believe. It is easy to believe because it is definitional. In some sense, definitional statements like this aren’t very useful, because they don’t talk about the real world in more concrete terms. In reality, there is no such entity as the government. There are only individual humans and office buildings. In reality, there is no such object as retaliatory force and you can’t just ostensibly define it from defensive force. There are only individual actions, and sometimes everything is not crystal clear. So, we have to root our understanding in the real world and in the complete English language. Not retreat back into definitions and comfortable propositions. The real world’s challenges do not allow for it. Not that definitions and comfortable propositions are bad. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. We must have a strong foundation. So, I hope it is clear, I don’t want to disagree with any Objectivist about the Objectivist position anywhere. Ayn Rand was completely right. She was the voice of reason, but I think there is a human tendency, perhaps weaker among Objectivists, to rely on the voice of their leaders. That is what I think I perceive. I believe it relates to what I perceive as too heavy of a reliance on the term monopoly. It isn’t a great enough word. It is over used. There is no justification for how often it is used. You have to stretch your language in order to strengthen your concepts.

I know I am preachy and arrogant and a lot of my readers will say, “duh” if not something worse about what I wrote. But oh well. I am preachy and arrogant.

16

No, I wasn’t talking about the Board Game. I’m sorry you have to ask.

It was an attempt at some humor. Does not the game tend to concretize the definition anyway.

I would suggest that rather than being misused, the method by which a non-governmental agency acquires such a prestigious position is misrepresented by those envious of the accomplishment.

That aside, the rest of your post comes across as a desire to reduce, break down, dissect or analyze the various abstractions to the perceptual level concretes that give rise to the following: monopoly, retaliatory force, defensive force, and government.

17

It was an attempt at some humor. Does not the game tend to concretize the definition anyway.

Oh, sorry. I took offense without cause. About the game being useful to concretize the concepts we’re talking about, I’m not sure. I’ll leave it to you to elaborate on that point, if you care to.

I would suggest that rather than being misused, the method by which a non-governmental agency acquires such a prestigious position is misrepresented by those envious of the accomplishment.

I have been talking about what the government does to various industries. I mentioned the railroads, airplanes, and the phone company. When these technologies were developed, the government misused them grossly, distorted the markets, and prevented progress for decades, centuries even. We still have the government involved in these industries. Since day one, the government has tried to monopolize these industries. So, while I agree with you said, it didn’t address what I saying.

That aside, the rest of your post comes across as a desire to reduce, break down, dissect or analyze the various abstractions to the perceptual level concretes that give rise to the following: monopoly, retaliatory force, defensive force, and government.

Yes, you nailed it. I have meant the entirety of each of my posts to come across as an effort to reduce, break down, dissect, or analyze the various abstractions to the perceptual level. To concretize the phrase “monopoly of force”. When you get into an argument without someone over what phrases like this mean. (Parenthetically, there is a big argument over this phrase), I believe this is what you should do. And I’m trying to emphasize that I think the problem comes from an over reliance on particular language choices and propositional formulas that have been given to us by our intellectual leaders. Where I would be without Ayn Rand explaining to me what the the higher level concepts meant, and breaking everything down, I shudder to think. And I would add that, historically speaking, it is a failure to trace back complex ideas to the individual human beings involved which has led to most of the worlds problems. I know we agree. If you are comfortable in your knowledge about what the monopoly of force means, then congratulations are in order, but if one finds himself in argument with say, a Libertarian, over this issue, I think the conversation is best served by tracing the concepts back to the individual human beings.

Edited for clarity

Edited again: and basically, I don’t like the word monopoly. It is a confusing word since it can be used in different ways, to mean the board game as an example.

18

CapitalismForever -

It wasn’t “your” question, was it? I was reading too hastily, I’m sorry. I certainly agree with your answer. It is the question I don’t like, because it obfuscates the issue by sort of glossing over the rights-respecting part. Again, sorry.

EDIT: But I also agreed with Dream Weaver when he wrote “A rights-respecting form of society arises from a rights-respecting mentalitied people.” I suppose it depends upon whether or not, once they have it, they can keep it. But I’d have to think about it some more.

19

I have been talking about what the government does to various industries. I mentioned the railroads, airplanes, and the phone company. When these technologies were developed, the government misused them grossly, distorted the markets, and prevented progress for decades, centuries even. We still have the government involved in these industries. Since day one, the government has tried to monopolize these industries. So, while I agree with you said, it didn’t address what I saying.

The distinction, or crucial difference here, if you will, returns to the answer of “Why do men need government?” To protect us from efficient transportation and communications? The misappropriation of the use of force by intervention via the excuse of protection of exorbitant pricing (isn’t using any of these services a choice?), public safety in the case of airlines, (was there prosecutable criminal negligence on behalf of the airlines?) does not justify it.

One of the ironies of anti-monopoly arguments is often contained in their desire to use the government to prevent their occurrence in the marketplace. Monopolies (phone, rail, air) are evil, therefore let us appeal to a monopoly (government) to ensure that there is only one monopoly (government) permitted within society. In switching the context between the private economy to the institution established to permit the pursuit of happiness within, diverts the focus of how private enterprise forces wealth from their victims equivocated with (in contra-distinction to) how government acquires voluntary payments from the customers who choose to purchase government products.

20

You retain the right to self defense but in a civilized society we must bring the use of retaliatory force under objective principles of law.

…

The government stops people from initiating force.

There is something very wrong here. Defensive force and retaliatory force are NOT the same thing. If my neighbor comes to my home to rob me, and confronts me with a gun threatening to kill me, and I am armed and shoot the neighbor that is defensive force. If my neighbor breaks into my home and robs me while I’m not present and I subsequently discover some of my stolen good in his house and shoot him, that is retaliatory force.

Certainly an individual has a right to use force to defend himself and his property. But “retaliation” means “revenge,” not “defense.” If defense works, there is no need for retaliation. Where does the right to revenge come from? How does someone allocate that to the government?

You said, “the government stops people from initiating force.” The fact is, it doesn’t, and it only comes in to “retaliate” after someone has already used force. If the government really prevented people from using force, there would be no need to retaliate.