Response #1

Previous posts suggest that Weber's assertion that a state "claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force" is somehow ambiguous and open to interpretation. One claims that force is but one tool among many while another claims that force is helpful but not necessary for a state. For the purpose of sparking respectful debate, allow me to disagree with both notions.

(1) All authority at the state level stems from force.
It is obvious in the cases of a bank robber tackled by police that force is an important tool of the state. You may, however, be under the misconception that other tools exist as well. What about economic tools like taxation or regulatory tools like licensing? These as well ultimately draw their strength and legitimacy from the state’s monopoly on legitimate force. If you refuse to pay taxes, the IRS will seize your earnings directly, repossess your belongings, throw you out of your home and possibly straight into jail. While most people do not experience this, they pay their taxes knowing that this potential consequence exists. Similarly, operating a vehicle or practicing surgery without a proper license carries with it the potential to be forcibly stopped from continuing such behavior as well as more serious sanctions. There are countless state powers ultimately predicated on the potential use of force and I would be curious to hear if anyone can think of a significant state function that draws fundamental legitimacy from some source unconnected to force.

(2) The strongest force in a state is inherently legitimate.
In 1949, Communist forces pushed the ruling Kuomintang out of mainland China and onto the island of Formosa (Taiwan). For over two decades, the United States chose not to recognize the Communists as the “legitimate” authority in China. This did not change the fact that the Communist Party controlled the military, police, schools, and administration of all of mainland China. Since the inhabitants recognized their authority, they by all means satisfied Weber’s definition of legitimacy. Imagine a case in which the state is not the predominant wielder of force – in that case, the state is no longer the legitimate authority and the more powerful force will inevitably replace the state and claim its legitimacy. In time, the largest force always becomes the legitimate force.