the social contract, and the monopoly of violence.

[danyboy27]

i have been thinking a lot about those two things lately.

The social contract is controlled and dictated by those who hold the monopoly of legitimate violence,does that mean that if in a situation where those who make and control the social contract are no longer in position to have this monopoly, they loose their control over the social contract?

IS the lebanese governement still in control of this contract, even tho they dont have the monopoly of violence beccause hezbollah is in actual control over vast part of lebannon?

i am sorry for this weird post, just juggling with idea.

[ComradeMan]

i have been thinking a lot about those two things lately.

The social contract is controlled and dictated by those who hold the monopoly of legitimate violence,does that mean that if in a situation where those who make and control the social contract are no longer in position to have this monopoly, they loose their control over the social contract?

IS the lebanese governement still in control of this contract, even tho they dont have the monopoly of violence beccause hezbollah is in actual control over vast part of lebannon?

i am sorry for this weird post, just juggling with idea.


I think you're right. It has been said the same of the mafia in Italy.

[danyboy27]

I think you're right. It has been said the same of the mafia in Italy.

State are too big entities and most of the time left a lot of void that other group fufill, most of the time illegaly.

Where the cops and social services dont go, the Mafia does, filling the position left by the state, and establishing their own version of the social contract, for the better or the worst.

I have been talking to folks who where living in small town, and just like the mafia, those communities established their own set of rules, sometimes outside the social contract.

gosh the state is a useless piece of junk.

[RGacky3]

The Mafia are like the cops, except FOR profit, and not subject to democratic oversight.

[ComradeMan]

State are too big entities and most of the time left a lot of void that other group fufill, most of the time illegaly.

Where the cops and social services dont go, the Mafia does, filling the position left by the state, and establishing their own version of the social contract, for the better or the worst.

I have been talking to folks who where living in small town, and just like the mafia, those communities established their own set of rules, sometimes outside the social contract.

gosh the state is a useless piece of junk.

Some have alleged that the line between mafia and state is rather blurred.

[NecroCommie]

Law is nothing but a rule or a threat that is imposed with monopoly of violence. It has no moral value above that, except if it serves a useful utilitarian purpose.

But yes, those who hold the monopoly of violence would like to think they have the monopoly over social contract. In reality social contract can be contested by rival organisations of violence.

[NecroCommie]

Some have alleged that the line between mafia and state is rather blurred.
It is very distinct. A mafia with a monopoly of violence in a certain geographic location would fullfill even the bourgeoisie definition of state. Seeing that the idea of a state as an organisation that holds the monopoly of violence, was originally an idea of a nationalist bourgeoisie state philosopher. (can't recall who though)

[ComradeMan]

It is very distinct. A mafia with a monopoly of violence in a certain geographic location would fullfill even the bourgeoisie definition of state. Seeing that the idea of a state as an organisation that holds the monopoly of violence, was originally an idea of a nationalist bourgeoisie state philosopher. (can't recall who though)

Not here.... nothing is ever what it seems.
:cool:

[danyboy27]

The Mafia are like the cops, except FOR profit, and not subject to democratic oversight.

not like the cops but like the governement without democratic oversight.

the cops are only the armed wing of the governement, just like goon and hired killer are the armed wing of the mafia.

The Mafia is pretty much Pure capitalism, with a radicaly different view of the social contract and a completly diferent set of rules of what is ethical, and what isnt. Just like any social contract, if you fallow their rules, you get some benefit, and if you didnt you get punished,

[danyboy27]

Law is nothing but a rule or a threat that is imposed with monopoly of violence. It has no moral value above that, except if it serves a useful utilitarian purpose.

But yes, those who hold the monopoly of violence would like to think they have the monopoly over social contract. In reality social contract can be contested by rival organisations of violence.

Precisely, but for an organisation to achieve that, it need to yield sufficent power to break that monopoly, like hezbollah for exemple.

and we can see in Lebannon right now that, beccause the army dosnt hold that monopoly of power, that beccause hezbollah control unofficially what happen over vast part of the country, that the lebanese governement have no real power over the social contract, it cannot claim to have this monopoly, Hell, the hezbollah influence goes beyond the sphere it have a control.

I dont like Hezbollah, but force to admit, one of the only way that seem to work these day to change or control the social contract is creating a state within a state, and taking it over by slowly claiming pieces of the monopoly of violence pie.

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually guys, the Weberian definition of statism is becoming far outdated. Many scholars nowadays refer to the state in terms of soveirgnty. It doesn't neccesarily need a "monopoly" on the use of violence, this wouldn't account for many ancient cultures that had strong inter-regional states. What is necessary is for it to be regarded (thru action) as legitimate, meaning uncontested by the people at large.

[danyboy27]

Actually guys, the Weberian definition of statism is becoming far outdated. Many scholars nowadays refer to the state in terms of soveirgnty. It doesn't neccesarily need a "monopoly" on the use of violence, this wouldn't account for many ancient cultures that had strong inter-regional states. What is necessary is for it to be regarded (thru action) as legitimate, meaning uncontested by the people at large.


that what i exactly said, the monopoly on legitimate violence.

the governement dosnt have the monopoly of violence, i mean everyone can use it, and are usually shunned for it.

the governement and other governement-like structures differ in the sense that those who are rulled by them see their violence has something legitimate and somehow norma. they might not like it, but see this violence has something that somehow need to be here to keep ''order''.

[ComradeMan]

that what i exactly said, the monopoly on legitimate violence.

the governement dosnt have the monopoly of violence, i mean everyone can use it, and are usually shunned for it.

the governement and other governement-like structures differ in the sense that those who are rulled by them see their violence has something legitimate and somehow norma. they might not like it, but see this violence has something that somehow need to be here to keep ''order''.


http://www.greatdreams.com/political/world-octopus.jpg


You'll figure this one out....

[Revolution starts with U]

Leviathin? NWO?
AM I CLOSE :confused: