Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago


    I think the words "based on force" is somewhat disingenuous.
    Bronson thinks it's obvious that based on force is true.

    We agree force is a necessary component of the law in the outlying cases

    • 2 years ago

      I would argue that a government cant really be defined without force. Its central to what a government actually is. Its the way we distinguish between government and non-government. Governments may use force but non-government are allowed to use force only when the government says so.

      A monopoly on the use of force then (they can still delegate this authority but it still originates with the government) is really how a state should be defined. Thats how I distinguish between imaginary states (Hawaiian Kingdom) and real states (state of Hawaii). Both believe in themselves, both have written constitutions and supporters, but only one has a monopoly on force, hence its the "real" government, not imaginary/pretend government.

      • 2 years ago

        Its why you cant rob from the rich and give to the poor even though it may be a noble cause. Only the state is allowed to engage in violence, and those who dispute this fact will be quickly convinced otherwise (through violence, by the state).