If you can make private and uncensorable payments, you can pay an army.

The “only one army” concept is how governments remain governments.

If you could raise and pay a competing army, the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence becomes threatened.

This is why most states also heavily restrict private access to arms. Interestingly enough, it is also why the United States explicitly protected it: to specifically prepare for (and protect the right to) violent revolution.

▲

matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If you can make private and uncensorable payments, you can pay an army.

Just in case people thinks this is far fetched...

Several countries in latin america are actually narcostates disguised as democracies. The drug cartels make so much money they can afford to have their own military forces, not rarely trained by actual soldiers who deserted for better pay.

I live in one such country: Brazil. We have a couple massive organized crime gangs which dominate huge amounts of territory. They have their own governments, their own laws, their own tribunals, they even collect taxes from their subjects. They essentially pulled off a stealthy, undeclared secession.

I gotta admit I have a certain respect for these drug gangs... They are an example of the power afforded by real freedom. Instead of waiting for the government to solve their problems, they had the balls to arm themselves to the teeth and seize what they wanted, like it or not. They exercised the freedom to build a new system that benefits themselves to the detriment of the society that shunned them. That's the freedom governments cannot tolerate. The freedom to replace them.

▲

jcul 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Would love to read more about these shadow states, these undeclared secessions. I've often wondered about cartels in countries like Colombia and Mexico and how they interact with the Government. I never thought about places like Brazil. Would welcome any recommendations on the subject.

	▲	matheusmoreira 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's difficult for me to provide sources because almost everything I've read about these gangs is in portuguese. English Wikipedia has surprisingly detailed and well referenced articles on these organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeiro_Comando_da_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comando_Vermelho > Individuals that fail to comply with the group's "discipline" are judged by the "crime courts", with sentences that can range from beatings to summary executions. > Rather than expanding by territorial conquest alone, the PCC is able to develop its illicit activities more efficiently by focusing on the regulation and control of markets combined with a monopoly on violence and discipline. Pretty much a parallel state. Just yesterday I was reading about how the drug gangs killed some electricians tasked with shutting off the electricty of a gang member for lack of payment. Another gang launched their own ISP which they forced their subjects to pay for and use, our FCC equivalent ANATEL was trying to disconnect them. "Undeclared secession" is just my interpretation of the situation. They dominate territories to the point brazilian police cannot freely operate without significant risk of death. Without police, nobody can guarantee brazilian rights and enforce brazilian laws. Without rule of law, is it really brazilian territory? I think not.

▲

bawolff 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is kind of how all gangs work. The narco gangs were just so profitable they were able to take it to the next level, but even if you look at organized crime in the usa in the 40s, its still kind of a shadow state, just on a smaller scale.

▲

mothballed 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

17% of the USA smokes weed (makes them a prohibited possessor), 8+% are felons, DV convictions are harder to find but incredibly common, 4+% of USA are immigrants who have no right to bear arms (illegal or non-immigrant visa).

So maybe 1/4 or more of the adult USA is explicitly barred from the right to bear arms. When you consider those same people would have been much of the ~3% that had high enough risk tolerance to fight the American revolution, basically the USA has barred a very large proportion of those with the risk taking temperament that would enable them to become part of the ~3%.

They've effectively made it illegal for revolution type of risk taker to have arms unless those risk takers used the police/military as that outlet. Note this is a relatively new development -- the M1 carbine was invented by a prisoner inside a prison!

▲

novok 4 days ago | parent [-]

If you knew the attitude those people had towards having "illegal small arms", you'd realize that isn't much of a barrier. It's kind of like the equivalent of bit torrent for them. Often it's easier to buy an illegal gun even if they are legally allowed to than to buy it legally used or new. They only avoid it because it's a conviction escalator if caught.

Also you can own guns on a non-immigrant visa as a resident if you have a local hunting license that are pretty easy to get and maintain. Even non residents can with hunting trips.

	▲	4 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

nxobject 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> it is also why the United States explicitly protected it: to specifically prepare for (and protect the right to) violent revolution.

How is the right to violent revolution prepared for and protected in the US?

▲

wslh 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You are forgetting the vast quantity of mercenaries that exists around the world. It is possible to build an army nowadays, drug dealers, and other groups can. They will not directly confront a country. Don't forget cybersecurity where relatively few people can attain a lot of power.