The monopoly on violence

I have written before on the concept of the monopoly on violence as being the fundamental underpinning of government. It doesn't matter what kind -- democracy, dictatorship, all points in between -- a government is a government because it is recognized as the only entity within a defined area that can use violence to defend its position. Moreover , it is accepted by the people that violence is a legitimate means for that entity and only for that entity (acceptance can be compelled by that very violence, of course, in less enlightened forms of government).

Once that monopoly on violence is established, we have government and all that flows from that.

That monopoly is real, and it is exercised regularly. When someone is arrested and tossed in the back of a police car, that's a form of State violence. Only registered agents of the State can do this -- anyone else doing it would be guilty of kidnapping. Indeed, kidnapping is a crime in part because it represents a threat to the government monopoly.

When the monopoly is broken, we have anarchy. In Africa, we have Somalia. In Asia, the border regions of Pakistan. In North America, Caledonia:

Two news cameramen were assaulted by protesters today, prompting Premier Dalton McGuinty to condemn the latest violence at the site of an aboriginal occupation in Caledonia, Ont.

The CH TV camera operators, one of whom needed stitches to close a head wound, said Ontario Provincial Police did nothing despite their pleas for help.

"The police were right behind me and I asked for protection," said Ken MacKay, a CH TV camera operator.

"I said, `I'm being assaulted, I need protection, they're trying to steal my camera' and nothing happened.

For weeks, the anarchists in Caledonia have acted with impunity. They have established roadblocks, interfered with commerce, and threatened and assaulted journalists.

The thing about the monopoly on violence is that you have to use violence to maintain it. Some monopolies form because prohibitive costs prevent other competitors from getting into the business. On the other hand, anyone can be violent. That means that the government can maintain its monopoly only by being more violent, forcing you to make the choice between the cost of defying the government versus the cost of submitting.

Those who choose to defy are criminals, but that label really only means "not government". The government performs acts of violence on the criminals (arrest and incarceration) and so retains its legitimacy.

As long as the government stays on top of the situation (the criminal problem, that is), threats to the monopoly can be controlled for a reasonable cost.

In Caledonia, the monopoly has effectively been broken. The agents of the government stand by and do nothing. The government itself is paralyzed:

In Edmonton where he was meeting with the country's premiers, McGuinty expressed dismay at the attack.

"It was with great disappointment that I learned of the violent incidents in Caledonia," he said in a statement.

"I would like to express sympathy and concern for those injured."

McGuinty also condemned the violence "by an irresponsible few" and called it "a repugnant attempt to derail the important progress we are making."

Condemning the violence is not the answer. A government does not have the luxury of being passive, and certainly not pensive. Violence must be met with State violence, or the credible threat of imminent State violence. The alternative is chaos until a new order is established and a new monopoly formed.

This might sound almost primitive, and in a way it is primitive. But that's because we're talking about the most fundamental concepts that define how societies, all societies, work. The protesters understand that. That is why they are taking these actions. They know that if they establish themselves as the only force for order in the disputed area, they will have won the fight.

The government can only win by showing that the government are the only force for order -- and that means ejecting any competitors. That cannot be done with negotiation, because negotiation is done between governments, and the government cannot afford a rival government to form within its borders.

The real problem facing McGuinty is that he has waited too long. Early in the process, a few arrests might have been enough to re-establish a monopoly on violence for the Crown. As time goes by, the cost goes up. The truly frustrating thing is that a government that was unwilling to put a few protesters under arrest is hardly likely to approve of the sort of assault required now to dislodge the protesters.

What will happen? I'm not sure. One possiblity is that an OPP officer who understands the concepts I've been trying to explain and understands his role as an agent for the State, will take it on himself to do what the Liberal government is unwilling to do, or even threaten to do, and that is meet violence with even more violence.

When that happens, when agents of the State feel compelled to act on their own initiative to save the State unwilling to save itself, then the breakdown is complete.