"Admission" suggests guilt. What's he guilty of?

Max Weber for the win for having the idea that the state has to have a monopoly of violence for there to be cohesion. Bush/Nato/Obama for the fail in arming independent warlords with their own private armies in Afghanistan. And a personal Obama fail for refusing to regulate private military firms that they are hiring.

Finally, something we fucking agree on; thought I would never find it.

I might have voted for him had he said this same thing during the elections, as candidly as he has said it here.

Before anyone goes off on a tangent, I voted independent in all elections.

If he feels this way, then why has he done nothing about it?! I hate how he could be so wise, but when it comes down to it, he has no real policies, or policices that are comprimised to the point of being worthless. Just an another example of him compromising his integrity for unseen reasons.

This was uploaded in July of '08. I'm not really surprised that was his stance on military contractors engaged in fighting back during the election. It seems common sense that the US hiring mercenaries to do jobs that should be done by the Military is not a very good idea. I would say the practice is transparently corrupt and irresponsible.

What I'd really be interested to know is what his record has been like as president, after inheriting all of these contracts with private security firms. Has he caused a significant reduction in our dependence on highly paid mercinaries? I'd look it up myself but I don't know where to begin at getting a straight answer.

The only thing that really concerns me with private contract is that there is at present no oversight with them. They have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. So at best, the only account they can be held to if they mess up is not being hired again. A "monopoly" on force doesn't preclude the government in seeking out specialists in war; if the same was held for developing new technologies the ability to keep an edge in war would be stymied (no lockhead making new tech for the military, would have to be all in house).

What is interesting to me in a constitutional scene is if this is legal. The idea of an army is pretty universal throughout mans history, and the constitution gives powers to the government to see over the formation, equipping and controlling of this hypothetical army. In a private army, all of those controls are given to some other organization; akin to the fed doing the congresses job of regulating the money system. It seems unwise when compared to the boondoggle the FED had done over the years, but I do allow that war isn't the same beast as the economy.

Anywho, that is all I had to bring the this conversation, I haven't really given much thought to the idea of military contractors doing war since Jericho (the show) ended. Though it does seem like if there is some combat unit with is "The best" at this very specific job, you would want them doing it, or at least advising on how it should be done...civilian or military personal be damned.

>> ^KnivesOut:

"Admission" suggests guilt. What's he guilty of?


Actually, no. Admission is not suggestive of guilt. To say "admission of guilt" would suggest that. But admission by itself? No. Move along. I still have no candy for you.

We know how this marxist vermin feels about the military. Obama's Latest Attack on America: Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

@blankfist, your title is a bit puzzling. KnivesOut said it implies guilt, but I'd say it implies that this is something he denied or contested, but I'm not quite sure why anyone would, assuming you actually understand what he's talking about.

"What essentially sets a Nation-State apart which is the monopoly on violence."

That is pretty much a quote out of any poli sci text book on gloabalisation. Its part of the point of a nation state. The nation state is the only thing with legal authority to smack you across the face, or kill you, or whatever violence. What takes it too far is when it smacks without legitimate provocation. This quote isn't outrageous at all if you study politics and take it in context, its part of the theory we live in.

On that note... F*** Obama!

@NetRunner, I've never actually heard a politician admit the government is a monopoly on violence. Have you?

A monopoly on violence in comparison to allowing violence (military actions) to be carried out by the private sector (contractors). Which was obviously his point. Should governments have control of their military forces? Yes. Should governments (specifically the US) allow their sovereignty and integrity to become diluted by sub-contracting out the enforcement of their foreign policy objectives to mercenary groups? No.

>> ^KnivesOut:

"Admission" suggests guilt. What's he guilty of?


Enslaving millions?

@blankfist, again you say "admit" and again, you act as though it's a revelation worthy of note.

It's like a creationist getting all giddy when a biologist "admits" evolution is a theory.

Let's put it this way, what do you think happens if the state doesn't have an effective monopoly on violence? Specifically, who makes and enforces law in that scenario?

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^KnivesOut:
"Admission" suggests guilt. What's he guilty of?

Enslaving millions?


Fine, that would be something, but Blankfist would rather imply that there's a wrong being committed, without having to directly say so. I simply asked what Blankfist is suggesting our president is guilty of.

I'm glad he's confessing that government is a monopoly on violence.

More on monopoly of violence from an anarchist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

>> ^burdturgler:

A monopoly on violence in comparison to allowing violence (military actions) to be carried out by the private sector (contractors). Which was obviously his point. Should governments have control of their military forces? Yes. Should governments (specifically the US) allow their sovereignty and integrity to become diluted by sub-contracting out the enforcement of their foreign policy objectives to mercenary groups? No.


Isn't the difference between a contractors and volunteers rather small? At present, the way in which they operate via command in control is vastly different an in need of an overhaul, but the defining characteristic at the base level are actually rather similar don't you think? Most people join the military for the check and the benefits at the end, same might be said of mercs for hire, the cash is what they are after. As far as I can see it, the only real distinction is that the former military have all roots anchored to the government, where as private is just that. In the end, it is still just citizens shooting guns at other people that the government says to; it doesn't jeopardize their monopoly on force, just a slight change of how to realize it.

Likewise, I don't see our sovereignty being diluted because the military has Lockhead make planes for them, or have some private company make an OS for their accounting department. It would seem rather insane to require all military assets be solely owned, managed, executed, and developed independently of the private options available. It seems rather arbitrary to say it is ok in every other function of the military except the fighting part. Being that the government is still saying who and what to attack to the mercs it doesn't seem to really violate any monopoly on force.

I find the whole argument rather interesting on force. How can the government have that power which in and of ourselves we do not have; the power over if a man lives or dies. It is an interesting conversation most likely beyond the scope of this rant, however

Anywho, It does seem like the current implementation of mercs is poor, at best. But to my knowledge it is really the first time it has been done on this scale before...problems go with that territory. I do see it as a potential hazard in the same way the FED is. If you give away your responsibility to an antonymous entity, you can't expect it to behave as you would like all the time. In that they control the fate of other humans in their hands, perhaps that is just to big a risk to take.

Blankfist, since you're admitting that Obama isn't 'guilty' of anything here, maybe you can edit the video title and description to say that "Obama Understands Government is Monopoly on Violence"? Because that's what it is - any nominally educated person understands that the government of a nation state holds a monopoly on violence in that state. If the citizens didn't grant the government a monopoly on violence, there would be private armies throughout the country, and independent fiefdoms wherever someone chose to set up and defend a border. There would be no justification at all for a police force, since every citizen would be equally entitled to arrest the cops, as the cops would be to arrest them.

The government of any democracy holds a monopoly on violence because it needs to be the only actor that is given the right to use violence against the citizenry. We give the government this right as long as it follows the rule of law; we agree to submit to this use of violence in order to legitimize the legal system and establish the possibility of actually enforcing the law. If the government doesn't have a monopoly on violence we have none of those things.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Isn't the difference between a contractors and volunteers rather small?

[snip]

As far as I can see it, the only real distinction is that the former military have all roots anchored to the government, where as private is just that.

If that's a small difference, what the fuck was all the fuss over health care reform really about?

I'm starting to wonder why so many people on here are bothered by the use of the word "admit"? Interesting. Either way, I'm glad Obama is finally confessing to it.

I don't think I hold to that doctrine of monopoly on violence as I understand it. There are 2 issues about it that bug me. First, I don't believe in natural rights, or at least we could never know what they "really" were if they did indeed exist. It is a matter of social contract that we arbitrarily decide which ones we wish to make the foundation of our government. As such, one of those is that no person can commit an act of violence against another person. Violence is prohibited. Our government is only an extension of our own rights, as I see it. The government isn't above those natural rights we all agreed upon, it is the custodian of them. It would then hold that it has no powers greater than any individual; it would have no power of to be violent.

This might seem to create a system unable to maintain itself because of a lack of impetus to defend the rights of those in it. However, when you act out in violence, you are in breach of the contract of non-violence. Therefore you are also no longer protected by the rules of non-violence. We see this in our own system all to clear; that government does not hold the sole act of reciprocity. If you are being violently assaulted you can defend yourself, violently. Most all civil law holds that governments do not hold a monopoly on violence, in fact, there should be no such crude understanding of violence as a sole arbiter.

The distinction is subtle I admit, but it is key in the fundamental application of law and placing the role of government. Government is the enforcer of the social contract. If one violates it then he is no longer protected by it. This distinction alleviates the moral problem of a government or a person using force against a person even though force is not to be used. It also allows the for the moral position of self defense. To assume that governments are above the people; that they inherit some right that the people do not have themselves is grave.

If I have mis-characteristic the monopoly on violence, it was not my intent. But from reading what others have posted and the links provided I can definitely say that I find that moral position unassailably perilous to an overly (and overtly) violent role of government.

I wonder if this means the 2nd Amendment will finally be revoked seeing how Obama has given his deposition that government is a monopoly on violence?

Here are some examples of the violence used by the monopoly:

>> ^blankfist:

I'm starting to wonder why so many people on here are bothered by the use of the word "admit"? Interesting. Either way, I'm glad Obama is finally confessing to it.



This is you, trolling, you hypocrite.

What? He's a better imperialist than Bush. I'm just glad he gave testimonial that government is a monopoly on violence. Most people try to dodge that issue, but not Obama. Has anyone else heard a politician admit this?

I will now confess that I'm currently writing this. I must also admit that I am using a computer keyboard to type with. I hope you believe my testimonial.

>> ^NetRunner:
It's like a creationist getting all giddy when a biologist "admits" evolution is a theory.

Exactly.

Hey Blankfist, I've picked out a mousepad for you. Use it as a reminder.

I confess that I can only survive by eating the corpses of living things I've hired people to kill.

<angry rant cos I'm having a reeeally bad day>

Man I can't stand anarchists. Three points:

All people aren't basically equal.
People are basically selfish.
People are basically bureaucratic!!!

The thing that bugs me most about anarchism is the lack of complexity. I can dig economic anarchism. Fine. All well and good. But come on. If our society fell to pieces we would lose so very much. Without bureaucracy we wouldn't have electricity for crying out loud!!! Can you make electricity on your own? I bloody well can't. I'd know how to in a few ways but I wouldn't be able to, starting from scratch, because I wouldn't have any valid materials. Most everything great around us is complex and wouldn't have happened without statism and/or capitalism.

</angry rant cos I'm having a reeeally bad day>
>> ^blankfist:

I'm glad he's confessing that government is a monopoly on violence.
More on monopoly of violence from an anarchist:

I fear I shall be owned for that comment.

>> ^lampishthing:

I fear I shall be owned for that comment.


Fear not. I hope your day gets better!

@blankfist It is an "admission" only if you look at it as coming from someone representing politicians in general.

It's like if an MLB player begins his career and says he takes steroids. If he had never previously denied or skirted the issue, then he's just sayin' it. But if you look at him as representing baseball players as a whole, then you could say that an admission has come from an MLB player.

IMO, we should be applauding Obama for his aboveboard politics instead of skirting or ignoring this fact like all of his predecessors.

EDIT: Is it "an" MLB player or "a" MLB player?

@Matthu I think you need to read about 'a' and 'an'. It doesn't matter what the letter is, just the sound. so, 'a major league baseball player' or 'an MLB player'.

@rubadub

Sorry for OT, thanks a lot. That's what I figured. I figured it must be the sound, but I didn't know if the rules accounted for such situations

Thanks again.

P.S. Lmao, paying attention to what I'm typing... I just noticed the sift won't allow two spaces after a period! Interesting, is this to save bandwidth?