VLVL 3 Zoyd and Hector

[Terrance]

 Hector has changed over the years, but it's worth remembering
> that for all of his endearing and entertaining qualities in 1984, he's the
> dude who thirteen years earlier set Zoyd up in a bogus marijuana bust in
> service of Brock Vond's vision of America. At that point he wasn't very
> different from the scabs who felled the redwood across Jess Traverse's legs,
> back in the day.


This doesn't make sense. 

Are you saying that Hector finally comes in from the outside, gets his
GS-14, becoming a bureaucrat, giving up the cold parking lot, door
kicking, dangerous, death (Death & Fascist Bureaucrat, i.e. Blicero,) 
defying, maverick ways and becomes a more entertaining and endearing ink
shitting human(e) cop at the same time? 

Hector changes. What else changes? 

As I said previously, Hector doesn't have a fucking clue. He thinks he
does. It's funny that he knows Zoyd so well. Problem is, Zoyd is only
one man. Zoyd is not the '60s any more than Frenesi is the '60's.
Hector's theory has some street credence. He was in the trenches.
Problem is, the trenches are like blinders. Now that he's in an office
job, at last, he's getting a different perspective. Well, he hasn't been
in the office for that long so he's got a lot to learn. And things
change. His theory is just "trickle down" Brockisms--Reagan budget cut
revolution and so on. Of course, even Brock doesn't know what Reagan
will do. Hector has no idea what's going on in his own world and
affairs. How will the Budget cuts and the Reagan revolution affect DEA?
Again, Hector is a Mexican-American. 

Anyway, changes. 


As Weber writes, charismatic authority "cannot remain stable, but
becomes either traditionalized or rationalized, or a combination of
both." 

Theory of Social and Economic Organization, p. 364.

p. 156.


The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A.M.
Henderson
and Talcott Parsons; edited with introduction by Talcott Parsons, Oxford
University Press, 1947

p.156. 

Since the concept of the state has only in modern times reached its full
development [earlier sovereign powers had been empires, dynasties, and
corporate bodies like churches and guilds often with overlapping
authority and jurisdiction], it is best to define it in terms
appropriate to the modern type of state, but at the same time, in terms
which abstract from the values of the present day, since these are
particularly subject to change. 




The primary formal characteristics of the modern state are as follows: 

It possesses an administrative and legal order subject to change by
legislation, to
which the organized corporate activity of the administrative staff,
which is also regulated by legislation, is oriented. 


This system of order claims bringing authority, not only over the
members of
the state, the citizens, most of whom have obtained membership by birth,
but also to a very large extent, over all action taking place in the
area of its jurisdiction. 


It is thus a compulsory association with a territorial basis. 


Furthermore, to-day, the use of force is regarded as legitimate only so
far as it is either permitted by the state or prescribed by it. Thus the
right of a father to discipline his children is recognized—- a survival
of the former independent authority of the head of a household, which in
the right to use force has sometimes extended to a power of life and
death over children and slaves. 


The claim of the modern state to monopolize the use of force is as
essential
to it as its character of compulsory jurisdiction and of continuous
organization.