The Big State: Referee of Violence or Spoils?

The State as Referee and the State as Exploiter: Anatomy of Control

One participant argues that very different ideologies share a common type: a leader who demands a giant state to impose their unique worldview. Within the discussion, the defense of the state doesn't always stem from the same place. Some see it as the referee that prevents a stranger from shooting you because they didn't like your face; others, as a way to steal: whoever divides and distributes takes the biggest share. This is an ancient discussion, tracing back to the family, the tribe, and the kingdom.

Why Does the State Claim a Monopoly on Violence?

One of the thread's main arguments is the referee thesis. Violence, it's argued, is a natural resource for imposition and inevitably someone will use it. Since it cannot be suppressed, it's delegated to a ruler 'who you more or less know what to expect from,' rather than letting everyone exercise it themselves, leading to the first person you meet shooting you over a scowl. In this interpretation, the State doesn't ask for permission: it imposes the legitimate right to use it.

Opposing this is the underlying suspicion: whoever concentrates power also concentrates the spoils. Points of concentrated power, it's warned, are a natural target for the greedy. As the saying goes, 'from those ashes, these embers.'

The State as Spoils: Who Divides and Distributes

One contribution summarizes it: 'To steal. Whoever divides and distributes takes the biggest share.' Through this lens, ideologies demanding a giant state to impose their worldview share a structure, regardless of their political banner. Another participant clarifies that the revisionist communism applied in the USSR was a totalitarian state, even though original Marxism aimed to create a socialist state, transition to communism, and, over generations, eliminate it.

Family, Tribe, Kingdom, State: Control That Comes From Afar

Another contribution proposes a more uncomfortable hypothesis: that it's an ancestral issue, 'it's in the genes.' First the father rules, then the tribe, then the kingdom, and finally the State. In all cases, with the same argument: 'it's for your own good.' Another response suggests that people don't control their own lives and get bored. And some conclude that the structure is identical in a warlord, a patriarch, or a patrolling commission. The uniform changes; the model doesn't.

The thread doesn't end the debate: for some, the State is necessary to prevent violence from being without a referee; for others, every concentrated power structure eventually becomes a target for the greedy. The discussion remains open.