This paper presents a model on the relationships between the authority of government, the scope of government, and the level of force employed by government to implement its decisions.
Authority is the right to be obeyed. Such a right must be grounded in some source, such as a moral principle, an ideology, or a metaphysical entity such as God. Government officials justify their authority by invoking 'the state,' "the nation,' 'the community' or some related notion of a collectivity. In order to exercise authority, however, it is not enough for government officials to claim it. People have to respect the right of the rulers to govern. To the extent that people believe that the authority of government officials is legitimate, to that extent they will lend them their consent and obey their instructions. 1
Force is the amount of physical coercion employed in human relationships. It takes the form of threats and/or the actual delivery of physical violence to people. Physical blows need not be administered for violence to be present in a relationship. The very existence of armed forces capable of delivering physical blows to antagonists constitutes a violent threat. Open warfare is the implementation of violence, not its manifestation. Peace by itself does not constitute an absence of violence. There can be violent as well as nonviolent peace.
The use of force by government is inversely proportional to its authority. That is, the greater the authority of government officials, the less force they need employ to implement a given level of instructions or commands. If people recognize the legitimacy of the rulers they will obey their decisions voluntarily. But, if the authority claimed by the rulers is rejected by the people, then, in order to implement their commands, the rulers have to employ force.