Weber Blog

Weber states, “force is a means specific to the state.”(31) I find this statement, and perhaps Weber’s definition to be somewhat troublesome. In today’s world, terrorists and other non-state actor have the ability to and do exercise the use of force.
One example is the firm “Blackwater,” a private military company commonly referred to as a “security contractor or a mercenary organization.” This company is a third party organization that does not operate within any one nation or state’s rules or laws. Typically, Blackwater carries out missions that have been officially sanctioned by the US government. These types of missions focus on external security, and can be argued to be “legitimate.” However, Blackwater soldiers are not US soldiers, they are simply paid by the US Government. Therefore, although Blackwater is on the side of the US Government, does that mean the force exercised is that of the US or that of a man being paid by the US who could be shooting on the opposite side if his paycheck changed? Essentially I want to raise the question, is the bullet that kills an Iraqi an American bullet or a bullet from a third party? If it is the later, then Weber’s definition may be incorrect.
Second, another example of an entity besides the state that uses force is modern day terrorist groups. When “Politics as Vocation” was written worldwide terrorism was obviously not as prominent as it is today, but in today’s globalized world, force, whether it is legitimate or not, is easily argued to be no longer specific to the state. As exemplified by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the bombing of the USS Cole, or the train bombings in Spain, force, and the means of a group to meet their aims is no longer controlled specifically by the state.