Top Dem Wants “State Monopoly on Legitimate Violence”

Why not a state monopoly on illegitimate violence as well?

Nadler added.  “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence.  And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”

That gem comes from Congressman Jerrold “The Waddler” Nadler who was absolutely hysterical with rage when it came to the Bush Administration, ridiculed the Constitution as “imperfect” and called on Obama to “exploit” the school shootings.

Nadler’s terminology tends to be used far more in Europe than the United States for good reason. And a state monopoly on legitimate violence would preclude any acts of self-defense. Obama used that same language some years back.

The contention that the defining element of a nation state is its monopoly on violence is a European concept and runs counter to the United States Constitution, which defines a state monopoly on war, not legitimate violence such as acts of self-defense.

The monopoly term goes back to German sociologist Max Weber, who as David Cordea points out, also supported Article 48, which allowed Hitler to come to power. Furthermore Max Weber’s original formulation is, ““Upholding   of   the   domestic   and   external   distribution   of violence and power. […] The appeal to the naked violence of the means of coercion towards the outside, but also towards the inside is absolutely essential to any   political   association.   …  the  ‘state’  is  that  association,  which  claims   the monopoly of legitimate violence – it can’t be defined otherwise.”

But the United States has defined the state otherwise. The United States is first of all a coalition of states that provide for the common defense, not for internal repression. And that’s what a state monopoly on legitimate violence comes down to.

  • Mary Sue

    The road to Idealism unequivocally and eventually leads to the end result of Statism. "I want to make the world a better place" invariably leads to "I gotta do something to FORCE the world to be a better place."

    • Daniel Greenfield

      That sums it up nicely

      • Mary Sue

        thanks :)

    • jakespoon

      M.S.- I personally don't want to live in their idea of a perfect world. It consist of too much regulation on everything in the name of "fairness".

      • Mary Sue

        I know, right?

        It reminds me of someone I know who works in health care in the US that was all for Universal Health Care like we have in Canada, because then in their minds they were justified in dictating what other people should put in their mouths and how they should live their lives. Because they don't want to pay for someone else's health problems that are "self-inflicted" (obesity, diabetes).

    • rodger the dodger

      Only those leading a revolution can possibly understand what ‘freedom’ is, as they have the perfect, one true answer to everything; no sacrifice is too great to make for it, including exiling, imprisoning, torturing and murdering their fellow citizens in order to ‘force’ them to be free. The plebs don’t understand what ‘freedom’ is, so they HAVE to be coerced.

  • Thomas Wells

    The liberals already have a monopoly on lunacy.

    • Mary Sue

      Indeed. The Waddler most of all.

  • RedWhiteAndJew

    What a legitimate government has, is a monopoly on the initiation of violence. I have a right to responsive violence, as does every free human being.

    And a government can lose it legitimacy. That's what the American revolution was all about. When leftists and statists talk about taking away guns, what they are really saying is, if or when they lose their legitimacy, they don't want the people to be able to do a damn thing about it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”

      One of the definitions of a nation state is that the sovereign has a monopoly on legitimate violence.

      That includes citizens who use violence legitimately. At least it used to according to the US constitution. The state has a monopoly on judicial violence.

      Anyway, he's just using the most superficial rhetoric like a typical liberal that wants to sound like he's preserving something already established when in fact he wants to implement plans for the new world order of socialism or worse (their delusions of Utopia).

    • Beverly

      I was so impressed with the way you expressed your post, that I wrote it down so I could remember it .
      I may very well have an opportunity to use it in the future. Thank you

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        You are very kind. Thank you, and my pleasure!