Thread by @PerBylund

An endless source of miscommunication and misunderstanding is the use of ambiguous terms and, worse, reliance on definitions that aren't clarifying but rather the opposite. One such term is the #State. We all "know" what it is but very few have attempted to define it clearly.

For everyday purposes, we don't need to clarify the term because our intersubjective understanding of it, and how we use it (the context), makes it clear enough. But not so when we debate or try to uncover why we have different opinions about it and, especially, its nature.

The State is an organization but not like any other. It has a distinct nature, characteristics that make it different from firms, HOAs, and sports clubs. It's also not, simply but vaguely, an abstraction of some conception of "us," as many prefer to see it. So, what is the State?

The classical definition, to use Weber's phrase, is that the state is the organizational entity “that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” While this is clarifying, it still needs unpacking.

1st, monopoly. It means the State claims the right and no one else gets to determine what physical force is allowed. This is why there is one police and not competing police forces, why there is a common set of rules to which police, military, national guard etc. are subject.

Monopoly here means there is a single set of rules that everyone must ultimately comply with. The court system illustrates this: what is ruled in a court "of law" is, given its procedures and appeals processes, the final say on the matter. No one gets to choose other rules.

2nd, physical force. This should be self-explanatory, but often is not. The State's power rests on force. It does not mean it always uses it, only that it can. The State claims the right to use force, and may also delegate such rights to someone else (person or organization).

Very often the implicit or indirect threat of force is enough for people to comply. That they do does not mean their behavior is voluntary. It is a grave error to think e.g. taxes are voluntary because we "choose" to report our income. This is made clear if you choose not to pay.

3rd, territory. This emphasizes the boundary of the monopoly claim: it is no monopoly if other actors "offer" the same things in your "realm." The boundaries to a State's claimed power can be defined as a land area, but they can also be cultural, behavioral, technological etc.

4th, legitimate. Often mistaken as an ethical claim, that the State not only claims a right but has moral precedence. Not so. History is full of examples of how this is not the case: a State's decrees can and do frequently conflict with people's (and even society's) ethics.

That a State's monopoly on violence is "legitimate" means not that it is just, but that it is in practice unchallenged. The State is the only (relevant) claimant of this power, and people in general consider it as such. Thus, its claim is legitimate. This does not make it right.

Proponents of the State often argue to deny its distinctive nature. But this mistakes definitions for value judgments. They're not. Definitions are descriptive, they clarify how something is different from other things. They're categorizations we use to make sense of the world.

To claim the State is not based on force is to claim it is like any organization. It might sound nicer, but if this were so, then we cannot explain its unique behavior and role in society, its powers and influence, and its institutions. Such knowledge would be beyond our reach.

That you do not like the implications of something's definition is not a reason to call for a different definition. Something is what it is, regardless of how you prefer to think about it. There's only one reason to change a definition and it is to increase the clarity it brings.

If a definition is vague, especially for boundary cases (where it really matters), then it has very little value. It will not contribute to our understanding of the world. Generally speaking, the more explicit and simpler the definition, the better and more clarifying it is.

The definition of the State needs not only describe what we want to think states are or do, but its main purpose is to distinguish the State from other, perhaps seemingly similar organizations. What is unique for the State? That is its essence and nature. And a proper definition.