Philosophy In Action All the ideas and discussions
18 votes Vote

Does the government monopoly on the use of force violate rights?

Anarchist libertarians have long argued that a rights-respecting government is a contradiction in terms. A government, by its very nature, must have a monopoly on the use of force. That must be a coercive monopoly, since the government will not permit competition in the form of any competing defense agencies advocated by anarchists. Hence, government will always violate rights. What is wrong -- if anything -- with this argument? I've never gotten a good answer, despite often inquiring about it. Moreover, what assurances do we have that this government monopoly will not behave like other monopolies, such that it gets out of control, increases costs, and eventually fails?

Marco Otero , 06.11.2013, 08:45
Idea status: completed

Comments

Bob, 11.06.2014, 10:12
I always answer this question by arguing that force can be used in 3 ways: aggressive, defensive and retaliatory. Aggressive force is what no one has a right to use, while defensive use of force is everyone's right (if not moral obligation) to use. The government has the monopoly of only Retaliatory use of force, i.e. the bringing of criminals to justice.

Leave a comment