Do we really love Max Weber?

In response to my fervent inquiries last class, I have decided to post this, for all who are unfamiliar with the ideas and philosophy of Max Weber. Below I will outline his most important ideas which are relevant to this class:

Weber defines the state as an entity which "possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force." This definition has become central to Western thought. He goes on to describe politics as "any activity in which the state might engage itself in order to influence the relative distribution of force." Thus, according to the German philosopher, politics is derived from power.

Weber also identifies three types of political leadership.
1.)Charismatic Domination (familial, religious)
2.)Traditional Domination (patriarchs, feudalism, patrimonialism)
3.)Legal Domination (modern state and law, bureaucracy)

Weber's ideas, especially his definition of the state, are especially important for this class. Numerous times, Professor has written this definition on the board and questioned whether a state is legitimate. This definition also ties into our failed state reports.

I find this definition very interesting. Although I agree that a state is successful if it has a monopoly on the use of force, I do not think that this is the sole purpose of the state. In my failed state reports, I examined a number of other variables besides the physical power of the state. These included economic concerns, humanitarian concerns and infrastructural issues. I think that the state certainly has other responsibilities towards its citizens besides their physical protection. Because of this, I see this definition as interesting, but flawed.