the contracts have to be enforced (to the benefit of those in power, which includes Halliburton). So force is needed. The US state still has an effective monopoly on force, at least in the US.
But to the extent that the gov't hires mercenaries, it is getting away from such a monopoly. We should remember that Weber's definition of the state was an "ideal type" (a model, an ideal). Not all organizations called "states" fit the ideal completely. Some fit it better than others. The US-run state in Iraq is far from the ideal, partly because of the insurgency and partly because of the important role of "friendly" militias and hired guns. Michael Perelman wrote: > I have been thinking about Ronald Coase's theory of the firm & what is > happening with the U.S. state. The U.S. state seems to be withering away, > in the sense that it is evolving into a series of contracts -- the > traditional military is giving way to Halliburton and Blackwater. Lockheed > is managing welfare .... > How does this system square with the conception of the state as having a > monopoly on force?< -- Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
