- 25 Jul 2012 10:12
#14015048
They would. Then the side with the greater quantity of resources wins, and takes control of the land. Or else one side decides it's just not worth it for them to fight the other off. Which is more or less how real countries are formed.
Well, specifically speaking the rule of law belongs to whomever controls the most guns. In a stable society there is a pecking order where an organization (the state) holds a monopoly over violence, and commands full control over the armed forces within its jurisdiction -- this is done that way because society implicitly understands that the alternative is much more unstable and unpleasant. When one or more pillars of the social structure decide to go against it, society breaks down, as it is held up by the monopoly over the use of force. In point of fact the army (not even necessarily its head) does basically hold the government by the short and curlies, and defers to it simply because they find doing so preferable to the alternative. There are dozens of cases throughout recorded history, however, of the army deposing the government, or popular revolutions overruning it.
mikema63 wrote:Yes because no body would resist a hostile takeover of their community
They would. Then the side with the greater quantity of resources wins, and takes control of the land. Or else one side decides it's just not worth it for them to fight the other off. Which is more or less how real countries are formed.
taxizen wrote:Ultimately any rule of law is the rule of the gun.
Eran wrote:This is patently false. Does the rule of law belong to the head of the army? Doesn't he have "the most guns"?
Well, specifically speaking the rule of law belongs to whomever controls the most guns. In a stable society there is a pecking order where an organization (the state) holds a monopoly over violence, and commands full control over the armed forces within its jurisdiction -- this is done that way because society implicitly understands that the alternative is much more unstable and unpleasant. When one or more pillars of the social structure decide to go against it, society breaks down, as it is held up by the monopoly over the use of force. In point of fact the army (not even necessarily its head) does basically hold the government by the short and curlies, and defers to it simply because they find doing so preferable to the alternative. There are dozens of cases throughout recorded history, however, of the army deposing the government, or popular revolutions overruning it.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." -F.A. Hayek