Gewaltmonopol des Staates

David Codrea criticizes a recent Huffington Post editorial by Josh Horwitz entitled Passing the Sword. Codrea writes:

“The question of whether armed citizens should be entitled to challenge the government with force is at the heart of the current debate over the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller,” Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz writes in a recent Huffington Post opinion piece.

CSGV, of course, is the kinder, gentler name giving PR cover for what was once called “The National Coalition to Ban Handguns.”

“The concept of a ‘monopoly on force’ might sound foreign or even frightening to Americans that take great pride in our revolutionary beginnings,” Horwitz continues, “ but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States.”

To back up this assertion, he cites, “German political economist and sociologist Max Weber.”

Read the rest here.

First, Max Weber did not say monopoly on "force", he said monopoly on "violence". However, the difference may be too subtle for an intellect as "exceptional" as Josh Horowitz's.

Of greater interest to Americans is that Weber's theory means government uses violence as a matter of right but that any individual or group that may only use violence when authorized to do so by the state. This means that there is no inherent individual right to use violence in self defense no matter how great the provocation. There is only a privilege which can be granted or withheld at the whim of the state.

That is a complete inversion of the discoveries of the Enlightenment and the founding principles of the American Republic where power is inherent in the people and the state acts by permission. If that state becomes abusive then the people have the right to withdraw any previously granted permissions. If this can be done peacefully then it should be. If it cannot be done peacefully then the state has abdicated its legitimacy and the people are within their rights to use whatever means -- including violence -- is necessary to bring the state back into line.

The reason for the Second Amendment was not to insure the right of self defense nor does it grant a right of revolution. It exists to insure that the people will always have the power to "alter or abolish" a government that is no longer responsive to the individuals is was created to serve.