This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
Does that say “whores” beneath “peasants” in the third minister column from the left?
It says “WITCHES”
Fun fact: the original response of the Catholic Church to accusations of witchcraft was to burn the accusers.
Because believing in witchcraft was a pagan belief.
LOL, that is just awesome!
And I was under the impression that monopolies were a bad thing. If the government has a monopoly on use of force, then the people only have the governments word that they will treat them fairly. I don’t trust politicians that much.
If microeconomics applies here, then giving the government a monopoly on the use of violence should lead to the government charging a higher price for violence and providing less violence than is socially optimal. Wikipedia|Monopoly|Monopoly_and_efficiency
You could argue that it doesn’t make sense to consider violence a service for which there is a positive socially optimal quantity in each market at each moment in time. However, the existence of mercenaries and assassins proves that someone is willing to pay for violence. Thus violence must be a service with positive economic value in some cases.
It certainly has value to some, but violence also, more-or-less by definition, involves negative externalities, most obviously on the targets of said violence. In the absence of corresponding positive externalities, or cause for the purveyors to internalize the full costs, that would imply that the true socially optimal level of violence is somewhere below the equilibrium level.
So, yes, a government monopoly on violence makes it more expensive and less common, relative to what the free market would provide. That’s the whole point.
In theory though, the benefit of having only one source of violence is it’s easier to hold it accountable for using it, as opposed to random mobs of angry villagers who come knocking in the night.
Would you prefer free competition over the use of force?
I don’t trust anyone that much. But I can vote against politicians.
False, funny hats are NEVER optional!