|
He bullseyes the point that the state is a monopoly on violence, coupled with the need for the state to force the people to hold themselves to the higher standard demanded of leadership is a really powerful lense for explaining a lot. And that's drawn against people flippantly ignoring this demand and instead growing basic human privilege through selfish actions - with all the examples he gives, it really is something worth investigating.
The reason you shouldn't care about him beyond the points he can bring to you is that even he struggles with something that he himself basically answers. Why is America constantly at war, this time with ISIL? Because America doesn't have a world's monopoly on violence, yet, and it certainly doesn't want more players in the game. And Joe Rogan has a knee-jerk sense to question some of his blanket statements, and he immediately backs down, showing that he's used to people eating from his trough.
edit: And as I remember, when talking about the monopoly of violence of the State he says something like, -liberals want to give them more power, whereas I think they should have less-. But the State already has all of the power, you can either find a way to make it better at using the power, or give it fewer ways to act. Throw bankers in jail for following the incentives of their industry, threaten the very industry itself with your violent authority, or just leave them to their own devices because you're too powerful to be deciding such things.
It's great.
|