Another great moment away from the teleprompter

[joobz]

You are so deluded you are turning what Brainster said about the Monopoly of Violence comment into a blanket apologetic. I think you've been blowing on that tuba too hard.

It's amusing to see your claim of "delusional" when this thread was started as a supposed example of bad speaking off-teleprompter.

 

[Upchurch]

You are so deluded you are turning what Brainster said about the Monopoly of Violence comment into a blanket apologetic. I think you've been blowing on that tuba too hard.

In another thread, you said my comment about being disappointed in Obama was being apologetic for him. What don't you see as apologetic?

 

[joobz]

In another thread, you said my comment about being disappointed in Obama was being apologetic for him. What don't you see as apologetic?

I think you'd need to say something along these lines to Obama.

 

[Brainster]

Brainster as an Obama apologist. Heh.

I will criticize him when I think he deserves it, and will back him up when that seems appropriate. Because I am a center-right Republican (note: not a conservative) I will tend to do the former more often than the latter.

Weber's argument is very interesting and sophisticated, and I was pleased to see that Obama is apparently familiar with it. The first time I encountered it (as a sophomore Poli Sci major), I spent hours trying to figure out why it was wrong, and was forced to conclude that it was right. It feels wrong. It sounds like something Ron Paul and his fruitloops would say in anger about the government.

Like I said, Obama extending it to Iraq is problematic because Weber specifies that the state only exercises power within defined borders.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Like I said, Obama extending it to Iraq is problematic because Weber specifies that the state only exercises power within defined borders.

I haven't touched that argument since I was an undergrad sophomore, but I'm sure there was some bit about what happens during a war.

eta:I forgot how little that essay/lecture had to do with the monopoly of force.

At any rate, here is the full text: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html

In my reading I interpret Weber as saying that the state holds the monopoly of force insofar as non-state organizations only utilize force to the extent permitted by the state. While Weber says that states only exert that power in a territory that is characteristic of the state, his further discussion of the role of war in leadership is compatible with the characteristic territory of the state changing based on acts of conquest and/or occupation.

From that I can see concern with private organizations in Iraq receeding too far from direct state control of what and when violence is permitted.

 

[Hokulele]

I will criticize him when I think he deserves it, and will back him up when that seems appropriate. Because I am a center-right Republican (note: not a conservative) I will tend to do the former more often than the latter.

Weber's argument is very interesting and sophisticated, and I was pleased to see that Obama is apparently familiar with it. The first time I encountered it (as a sophomore Poli Sci major), I spent hours trying to figure out why it was wrong, and was forced to conclude that it was right. It feels wrong. It sounds like something Ron Paul and his fruitloops would say in anger about the government.

Like I said, Obama extending it to Iraq is problematic because Weber specifies that the state only exercises power within defined borders.

Eh, mostly I was getting a chuckle out of the irony of corplinx' statement containing a nugget of truth (as all irony must). Don't mind me, it doesn't take much to amuse me.

Regarding the "Monopoly of Violence" issue as applied to Iraq, the thing that muddies the water most in that case is what happens when the state that controls the territory is incapable of of maintaining the monopoly. It seems inevitable that something will fill the power vacuum and claim the right for itself whether it is a local militia, an armed insurgency, or an outside source. At this point, you are not talking about a "right", but a fact, so I am not sure if it was entirely inappropriate on Obama's part to extend the concept.

 

[Brainster]

Eh, mostly I was getting a chuckle out of the irony of corplinx' statement containing a nugget of truth (as all irony must). Don't mind me, it doesn't take much to amuse me.

Regarding the "Monopoly of Violence" issue as applied to Iraq, the thing that muddies the water most in that case is what happens when the state that controls the territory is incapable of of maintaining the monopoly. It seems inevitable that something will fill the power vacuum and claim the right for itself whether it is a local militia, an armed insurgency, or an outside source. At this point, you are not talking about a "right", but a fact, so I am not sure if it was entirely inappropriate on Obama's part to extend the concept.

Correct. De facto obviously the US maintains the right to exercise violence in Iraq, so we're really talking about whether Obama was right in an academic sense.

 

[Gurdur]

Correct. De facto obviously the US maintains the right to exercise violence in Iraq, so we're really talking about whether Obama was right in an academic sense.

With thanks to various on this thread,

One practical concern is that the USA as a state could be severely embarrassed by antics of the subcontractors.

Another practical concern is that the subcontractors on the whole cost the USA as a state more than had regular military been used.

 

[Upchurch]

I think you'd need to say something along these lines to Obama.

Yeah, but corp stopped dealing with rationality when it comes to Obama. Not only is my expressing disappointment with Obama on issues apologetic for him on those issues, but in this thread I didn't even comment or refer to "what Brainster said about the Monopoly of Violence comment". You know, the thing that I supposedly turned "into a blanket apologetic" for Obama.

Apparently, my intention to vote for Obama means to corp that everything I say about Obama, good or bad, is apologetic and delusional. I don't think he would even accept a french taunting as anything but.