Use Of Force

The definition of ‘state’ is ambiguous. The meaning can change depending on the context. For instance, it could relate to agencies within the state such as government bodies, or the practices carried out by individuals. Furthermore, the state is part of everyday life and manifests itself through the combination of institutions, practices, people and discourses. This creates social order (Blakeley and Saward, 2009, p. 360).

The use of force is inevitable in police work. In many situations the lives of officers or civilians can be taken by not using force when necessary or using it improperly. Many factors come into play when an officer decides to use force. This includes is the use of force justified, has the officer been properly trained to use force, and will the department be held liable if the force is used improperly?

The “state” is best understood in relation to a government’s power, influence and involvement with citizens’ rights in a given territory. The larger the state the more involved it is in the lives of its citizens.

A "state" is a historically specific formation and cannot be confused with other political organizations belonging to different cultures and epochs. A "rational" state was only possible in the West, because such a formation is historically and geographically specific. Indeed, only after the achievement of the monopoly of violence does it make sense to speak of a "state." First, Anter seeks to justify Weber's attempt to explain the state in terms of individual agency. Such an account underestimates Weber's own "structural" concept of the state, according to which the state has an internal logic and autonomy. Weber's agent-orientated interpretation, in which the state comes in and remains in existence because certain actors base their actions on the assumption that the state exists or should exist, contradicts his notion of the state as an organization of domination based, in the last instance, on physical violence and following its own laws (Eigengesetzlichkeiten). (Norkus, 2004) Rather, as a social macro-structure the state must be analyzed through categories independent of agents. A similar problem occurs when Anter claims that, for Weber, a sociologist can see the state only as a conceptual construct. This seems to forget his other view, that the material bases of the state are violence and domination. Second, it is doubtful whether Weber really defined politics as so closely tied to the state. In Weber's political writings, the state and the nation are

The first requirement for a legitimate state is that they provide protection for the people’s rights. Whether it be conventional rights or moral rights, the state should give more protection than without a state at all.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

But, are there any restrictions on what the state may do to other states and to its residents. There are three main points to answer this question: political realism, pacifism, and just war theory. Political realism is an outlook that that there are no ethical restrictions on what one state might do to other in a hunt of its own curiosity. Pacifism insists that honesty practices to the connections between states and especially to intensity in between and so to war. There are two shapes of pacifism: absolute and conditional. The absolute pacifist believes that the war is always wrong and conditional believes that the war might be justified in some situations. Just war theory claims that the war is immoral but is morally defended if it fits both, the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello settings. Just in bello stands for two settings, such as proportional means and noncombatant immunity. And just ad bellum stands for seven settings, such as legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, real and certain danger, reasonable probability of success, and proportional end. This theory also convicts terrorism (pp.

In a way, it is that State’s duty to relate and connect the individuals and group while acting as an indirect force. Additionally, the State is allowed to monitor the development and interactions within a specific collective body, but it is only limited to recording the results. To him, the State is like the ideal person who has the perfect personality and is able to organize the nation while granting some freedom to the people. On the other hand, the rights that are considered to be useless or harmful are deprived from the people. The purpose of the State is to preserve what is essential to the people, and discard the

William Carlos Williams, the author of the story uses a doctor, which is on a house call to show variety of emotions and decision making that a doctor has to deal with. The author also illustrates a brief conflict between a patient and a doctor. The use of force is a short story about one little girl, Mathilda Olson. She has been severely sick from past 3 days. Mathilda Olson may have diphtheria, a contagious disease that has been going around in the area, and that disease had killed two kids already. The mother of Mathilda quickly calls for the doctor and the doctor takes no time to get there to check the patient.

As defined by the book, Introduction to Political Theory by Hoffman and Graham, the state by definition is “an institution that claims a monopoly of legitimate force for a particular territory” (pg 509). The films which we have viewed so far all portray the state in a not so favorable light. The state possesses a great amount of power and force that it can quiet down any person if the state feels threatened. With supporting evidence from the films and the books, we will see how the state does not do a very good job with promoting the ideals on freedom and we will see just how powerful the state really is.

“The Use of Force” is one of William Carlos William’s short stories. There’s a common thing in his short stories – describes the story’s setting and events by using what people are familiar in the ordinary life. For example, “The Use of Force” is mainly about the power of “mandatory” that the doctor uses during the process when he is trying to examine the sick girl for her health condition. After the doctor and both her parents’ persuasion fail, under the power of “mandatory”, the doctor eventually understands the condition of the little girl. In order to protect Mathilda herself and other children, the doctor had to make sure whether she had diphtheria or not, so that he could treat her in time, since two children already die in her school.

In Giddens’ “State, Society and Modern History”, we learn what it means to have power being an agent. The author writes about two types of power, which are allocative and authoritative. The first refers to the dominion over material facilities like perhaps non-renewable resources or access to agriculture that perhaps other states do not have available to them. The second refers to the actual dominion over human activities like it is to enforce the law and have citizens abide by the rules. According to Giddens, to be an agent is to be able to make a difference to the world, and to be able to do that is to have power. This is a very important point since it provides with a very good base for what is to be discussed next. Otto Hintze and Max Weber, the “founding fathers” of state building theory, make a lot of emphasis on the use of violence and warfare as successful means for state building. The work of these authors is very interesting and logical since it provides us with proof of what has worked effectively in the past. Weber’s definition of the state is divided into three main components, which are the existence of regularized administrative staff able to sustain the claim to legitimate monopoly control of the means of violence and uphold that monopoly within a territorial area. In other words, have a government that is able to put a strong and large army that is feared by others and be able to protect their borders with such army. Hintze says it is military

Based on Weber’s notion of a state, a state can be defined as an establishment that is legitimate and has the power and authority over its citizenry. Moreover, it should have an influence on the internal affairs of the state as well as the foreign. As per Weber's specific definition, “a state has an imposing business model on honest to goodness viciousness” (Oslon 673) Thus, various institutions and foundations such as the military, common administration or state organization, courts, and police characterize the state. The citizenry should also be involved in activities within the state. An example is private equity whereby the citizenry contributes to the state by facilitating infrastructural growth and economic

Military force, too, has limitations. Even as military capabilities grow, its limitations increase. Tiny European armies controlled vast empires in the 19th century. Today, democracies are more focused on welfare than on glory. It requires considerable moral justification to ensure moral support for conflict. "The most powerful states have lost much of the lust to conquer."

He believes that state is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control and possessing an organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience". From these definitions of state, it can be said that the state is a political institution of definite territory, organized government, and population and with sovereign power. Thus the definition of states gets more clear with what elements is the state formed which are namely: