I'm not sure you understand what "monopoly on the use of force" means. Perhaps you think it's nothing more or less than "private citizens can't own weapons"? But it's more than that. The state decides who is authorized to enact violence, and under what circumstances. The state may say "you can own a gun, you can shoot trespassers on your property." But at the same time it says (at the very least) "you cannot shoot agents of the state performing their duties, or you will be punished."
Any state that loses the ability to enforce that policy is no longer a state, it's just a bunch of guys issuing suggestions.
I'm not sure you understand what "monopoly on the use of force" means. Perhaps you think it's nothing more or less than "private citizens can't own weapons"? But it's more than that. The state decides who is authorized to enact violence, and under what circumstances. The state may say "you can own a gun, you can shoot trespassers on your property." But at the same time it says (at the very least) "you cannot shoot agents of the state performing their duties, or you will be punished."
As usual, the legal reality is more nuanced than the simplistic definitions that you (and Max Weber) are working with. There's been more than one case in the US where homeowners have legally employed lethal force to defend their homes against invasion by police.
(To be fair, I can't think of any other countries where that could ever happen, and it's not exactly common here. It helps if the homeowner is of the approved race and/or economic class, which is a massive issue in itself.)
I'd say the defining attributes of statehood are the ability to control one's borders and customs, the responsibility to defend those borders, and the ability to maintain a monopoly on currency within them. There is really no rational basis for pitting an individual's right to self defense against the definition of statehood. Again, it's an opinion, not a fact, and no Wikipedia articles or philosophy textbooks can change that.
Who is downvoting this guy? Monopoly on use of force... that doesn't belong to the state. If you see a man raping a woman.. you can probably knock him out.
As for borders.. they are not immoral. Illegal immigration benefits people good at illegal activities: criminals. These criminals rape, murder, rob and kidnap their "customers".
If someone said to me "hey, we can go make a lot more money, but we have an decent chance of being raped, kidnapped, robbed, or murdered", and I'd say, nah, I'll stay here.
The rape numbers are now more like 30%, but that is still not worth it, not advisable. I'd like to see a wall just so people stop trying to do this dangerous activity, which benefits raping, murderous cartels.
Many women get stuck in prostitution rings in Mexico because they are tricked into debt, which they then have to pay off. They are not Mexican citizens, so they can't go to the police, and they never make it to America.
We don't have to demonize the illegal immigrants, but the people who are facilitating the illegal immigration are demonic.. raping, murdering, robbing their "customers".
Trump knew this in 2015. He was referring to the "80% of central american women are raped when crossing illegally" article when he announced and said "they're bringing crime, there are rapists". Here he references the actual article.
https://youtu.be/m91vEm9kAsY?t=184
> If someone said to me "hey, we can go make a lot more money, but we have an decent chance of being raped, kidnapped, robbed, or murdered", and I'd say, nah, I'll stay here.
Do you think people immigrate illegally just for extra spending money? All of those horrible things can also happen to them at home. They choose to risk everything for the hope of a decent life for themselves and their families.
If you're against illegal immigration, fine, but don't fool yourself that anyone is motivated by concern for the poor immigrants. If you really want to undercut the cartels and give immigrants a better life, make more opportunities for them to immigrate legally and become productive Americans.
> Who is downvoting this guy? Monopoly on use of force... that doesn't belong to the state. If you see a man raping a woman.. you can probably knock him out.
Read my grandparent post. I specifically addressed that. The state can authorize citizens to use violence in specific situations while maintaining absolute authority over who is allowed to use violence, just as a commercial monopoly can authorize other companies to manufacture their products while maintaining a monopoly.
The rest of your post...who do you think you're arguing with? No one said borders were immoral or mentioned anything about Mexico or Trump. It looks like you saw the word "borders" and went off on a tear.
