What you say is squarely in line with my thinking, except sooner or later a state that just buys force may have trouble maintaining its monopoly on force.
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:56:50PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > 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 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
