Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson
Weber wasn't defining this as what a state should be, but philosophically what a state IS. As in, an entity that is recognized by those living in it and those living around it as having legit use of force in its territory is a state. It may be a bad state, a cruel state etc, but it is a state. It's a philosophical starting point.
That is exactly what I said. It is an insufficient definition of what a state is. Even a bad state defines itself by more than the common defense against external and internal enemies. There is always a common good, however imperfectly embodied, and the common good is more than "the monopoly of legitimate violence."