Historically speaking, I would say this trend would end with their citizens rebelling, but with robotics becoming more prominent, it's possible that revolution becomes impossible. Techno-fascism is the most dangerous form.
Corporate and government surveillance of every detail of our lives pretty much guarantees any revolutionaries would be sniffed out and crushed long before they ever had a chance to organize.
If you want to rebel against the state, whether or not they have a "monopoly on the use of force" is irrelevant: civilians aren't going to be able to fight against effectively against a trained military or state paramilitary, especially more so in the US.
This could not be more false. A prime example is the history of the (still ongoing) Iraq conflict - it's nearing 16 years now. Or there's Viet Nam, Northern Ireland (aka the troubles), and you might recall the Communist Party of China? See this Wikipedia page for many more (both successful and not so successful). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements
The people making up that "trained military" are themselves civilians at the end of the day. It all comes down to how widely supported the revolutionaries are. In most cases they don't fare well because they aren't actually that widely supported, just vocal and violent.
This all changes in the fairly predictable near future where scifi-esque armed machines are a reality.
Iraq and Vietnam are both examples of populations resisting against a foreign military invading their country, thus having to deal with a population, and culture, they have no clue about.
That's quite a different scenario than your own domestic government turning on you, with its way better understanding, and DATA, about the people of the country. In a situation like that, the state institutions will be taken over fully functional and turned against you, while in Iraq and Vietnam these state institutions were among the first to be dismantled by the invaders.
If you err on the side of extreme violence, I think it is perfectly possible to arm machines with "good" results. If making "mistakes" when targeting things or people horrifies you, then maybe you are correct. I posit that the state does occasionally care more about results than about whether or not they are horrified (obviously not every state is the same, but certainly the superpowers are like this).
Vietnam at least is not a good example. Their efforts to kick out colonial powers would not have succeeded without a huge amount of help from Russia and China.
I'm not sure you understand what "monopoly on the use of force" means. Perhaps you think it's nothing more or less than "private citizens can't own weapons"? But it's more than that. The state decides who is authorized to enact violence, and under what circumstances. The state may say "you can own a gun, you can shoot trespassers on your property." But at the same time it says (at the very least) "you cannot shoot agents of the state performing their duties, or you will be punished."
Any state that loses the ability to enforce that policy is no longer a state, it's just a bunch of guys issuing suggestions.
I'm not sure you understand what "monopoly on the use of force" means. Perhaps you think it's nothing more or less than "private citizens can't own weapons"? But it's more than that. The state decides who is authorized to enact violence, and under what circumstances. The state may say "you can own a gun, you can shoot trespassers on your property." But at the same time it says (at the very least) "you cannot shoot agents of the state performing their duties, or you will be punished."
As usual, the legal reality is more nuanced than the simplistic definitions that you (and Max Weber) are working with. There's been more than one case in the US where homeowners have legally employed lethal force to defend their homes against invasion by police.
(To be fair, I can't think of any other countries where that could ever happen, and it's not exactly common here. It helps if the homeowner is of the approved race and/or economic class, which is a massive issue in itself.)
I'd say the defining attributes of statehood are the ability to control one's borders and customs, the responsibility to defend those borders, and the ability to maintain a monopoly on currency within them. There is really no rational basis for pitting an individual's right to self defense against the definition of statehood. Again, it's an opinion, not a fact, and no Wikipedia articles or philosophy textbooks can change that.
Who is downvoting this guy? Monopoly on use of force... that doesn't belong to the state. If you see a man raping a woman.. you can probably knock him out.
As for borders.. they are not immoral. Illegal immigration benefits people good at illegal activities: criminals. These criminals rape, murder, rob and kidnap their "customers".
If someone said to me "hey, we can go make a lot more money, but we have an decent chance of being raped, kidnapped, robbed, or murdered", and I'd say, nah, I'll stay here.
The rape numbers are now more like 30%, but that is still not worth it, not advisable. I'd like to see a wall just so people stop trying to do this dangerous activity, which benefits raping, murderous cartels.
Many women get stuck in prostitution rings in Mexico because they are tricked into debt, which they then have to pay off. They are not Mexican citizens, so they can't go to the police, and they never make it to America.
We don't have to demonize the illegal immigrants, but the people who are facilitating the illegal immigration are demonic.. raping, murdering, robbing their "customers".
Trump knew this in 2015. He was referring to the "80% of central american women are raped when crossing illegally" article when he announced and said "they're bringing crime, there are rapists". Here he references the actual article.
https://youtu.be/m91vEm9kAsY?t=184
> If someone said to me "hey, we can go make a lot more money, but we have an decent chance of being raped, kidnapped, robbed, or murdered", and I'd say, nah, I'll stay here.
Do you think people immigrate illegally just for extra spending money? All of those horrible things can also happen to them at home. They choose to risk everything for the hope of a decent life for themselves and their families.
If you're against illegal immigration, fine, but don't fool yourself that anyone is motivated by concern for the poor immigrants. If you really want to undercut the cartels and give immigrants a better life, make more opportunities for them to immigrate legally and become productive Americans.
> Who is downvoting this guy? Monopoly on use of force... that doesn't belong to the state. If you see a man raping a woman.. you can probably knock him out.
Read my grandparent post. I specifically addressed that. The state can authorize citizens to use violence in specific situations while maintaining absolute authority over who is allowed to use violence, just as a commercial monopoly can authorize other companies to manufacture their products while maintaining a monopoly.
The rest of your post...who do you think you're arguing with? No one said borders were immoral or mentioned anything about Mexico or Trump. It looks like you saw the word "borders" and went off on a tear.
