In a number of topics in this forum, I see people refer to the State, often as a pejorative. People accuse the State of brainwashing, of having evil or power-lusting intentions; socialism is referred to as “slavery to the State”, or the creation of a “nanny-State”; anarchists recommend the dissolution of the State. But what the hell is the State?
In the US, where I live, the government is ostensibly the people. It is a group of people charged with ensuring social cohesion for the benefit of all, and deriving their power from the rest of the people. In practice, it surely doesn’t work that way, but it is still somewhat true: the army is a group of free citizens; the dollar is accepted by social convention; the president and the congress are given their power by the acceptance of those they control.
How, then, can the State be ‘evil’? At worst, the people that are given the trust to make impartial decisions are evil, or power-hungry. How can we be slaves to a system that we empower? At worst we are slaves to ourselves, and slaves-cum-masters to each other. How can the State be dissolved? Only by the complete dissolution of large scale cooperation, because otherwise the planners and designers of any group movement would be the State de facto.
We often ascribe to large groups a mind of their own, and we love or hate, praise or malign, and encourage or detract from them as though they were people in their own right. This thinking misses the significance of the individuals that make them up, and the solutions that are suggested too often fail due to this oversight. It’s well to remember that, most often, we are the State.
the state is an apparatus that keeps the subjects in a political community “in their seats” with the prospect of “legal” prospective violence- it’s so pissed on by so many people because power corrupts Men( and women ) and the functions of the State tend to work in certain directions as opposed to others…
Here is a concise definition: The State is organized theft on a territorial basis.
Thus, the concept is identified by the behavior of people and also depends on the territory. In certain parts of the world, The State includes:
the police force
the military
the mafia
the public schools
the corporations
the legal system
the tax-collectors
the central banks
some or all of the above
just to name a few.
Often times, there is no black and white delineation between state and non-state. For example, corporations are groups of people who derive protection under the state. Without the state, corporations would not exist. [This is where a lot of socialists get confused and identify themselves as ignorant marroons. They often attack free-market capitalism – or what they inconsistently identify as free-market capitalism – by pointing to corporate injustices. The socialists do not recognize that the injustices are a direct result of state protection which does NOT constitute a free-market at all.]
However, most individuals do business and are dependent on members of the state. Does that make every individual complicit in state actions? Some people think so. That is a different debate. Ultimately, that question is logically analogous to asking: “Is a slave complicit in his slavery if he accepts food, clothing and shelter from his slave master?”
No. That is the last thing The State is. Statesmen derive their power through brute force.
The government is just a select group of people who hold power. The government is not the people.
Well, Considering that we elect the government, The people are the government. We make sure the government is adhering to what we want and what we don’t. If we weren’t happy with the government, we have, I think 300 million people would let someone know. It’s been done with a whole lot less.
MoL, I see your point, but I disagree. Considered as the actions of people, the evils of of the state result from the ignorance of the people. That’s why a constitutional democracy exists, and has worked so well for so long: it makes sure that no one forgets certain self-evident truths, and inalienable rights.
S_K/Sam, I think you’re still committing the error I point out in the OP. We maintain and compose the “apparatus that keeps the subjects in a political community “in their seats” with the prospect of “legal” prospective violence.” We keep people from killing each other by social agreement. The police, the military, the public schools, the tax, the legal system, they are all agreed upon because they all serve needs. We want certain members of our society designated as peace-keepers, and so we arrange for it by communal agreement. We pay for it by agreement that we will all contribute towards the safety of the group, and we arrange for a system whereby we enforce contribution.
It’s not significant that one or two people, or one or two percent, would like to see a world without cops. Nor is it significant that many choose not to voice their opinion about what should be. Just like those born with serious mental deficiencies do not cause us to reject the statement “humans are the most intelligent ape.”
Yes, the state is merely the tool of ignorance. I consider it evil when ignorant masses dictate how my freedom should manifest itself via the state.
Oh hell noes! It was a constitutional republic with very limited democratic representation until “Jacksonian democracy” came along and fucked it up real good.
Our founders knew well to fear the mob. Neither the Presidency nor the Senate were originally intended to be directly elected.
That is a very bizarre way of laying blame. Every single person is born ignorant.
How do they become non-ignorant?
I do not think I am making an error at all.
I think your assertion of the “apparatus … etc.” is a false illusion.
[NotaBene: I am talking about The State in general as it applies throughout the entire world in the past, today and future. I have no idea where you live and you have no idea where I live. I could be living in a tiny commune like the Swiss Family Robinson on a deserted island somewhere in the ocean. You could be starving and tortured to death in an early 1940’s European concentration camp. The next guy who reads this thread could be Bill Gates or the Queen of England for all we know. I hope you understand what I mean: it serves no purpose to discuss The State with a narrow perspective that is dependent on one particular example. We should consider what The State means universally. Hence, my definition up above.]
I disagree for two reasons.
the premise is completely wrong – it is not an agreement. It is a coerced situation.
even if it was an agreement, the fact that people have the power to renege on this hypothetical agreement suggests that there is a different reason.
I believe the true reason is quite simple: we are not all killers.
Being a killer is actually a stupid thing to do strategically as an individual. With or without a legal system (state-monopolized or private), a killer is very vulnerable to being killed himself anyway with most public support going towards the vigilante.
[By the way, your “everybody killing everybody” is a frequent argument to support state authority. We anarchists hear it all of the time. I have a question for you: Why do you ask it??
You could have also said: “We keep people from molesting children or slamming doors in old people’s faces or shitting on their neighbor’s lawn or farting in elevators by social agreement.”
I am trying to push you towards one concept: without coercing people, there is still reasonable incentives for people to act cordially together.]
The above statements are exceedingly frightening.
If you follow your logic universally, it justifies state actions that abuse minorities.
It is VERY significant that one or two people, or one or two percent, would like to see a world without cops. The significance is that it disproves your belief that there is an agreement. If you insist on calling it a “social agreement” after today, I am sorry, but it is hard to take your social outlook seriously or to trust you. I know that sounds harsh but I am serious.
it is noble to defend “the elites”, but honestly Carleas, do you deny that in the end it has been few who have manipulated many into giving them everything.
“the company C.E.O’s who plot ways to get tax breaks or to increase profit while reducing costs.”
----->WALL-MART<-----
how can you deny that all those greedy bastards dollars they steal translates into billions of dollars of debt for the u.s citizens and irrefutable inequality.
i know it is foolish to throw stones at your “state building”. but you cannot deny that from somewhere within, a plot was hatched …
I reject the definition that “The State is organized theft on a territorial basis” because it doesn’t capture all forms of statehood. It excludes communal living, it excludes tribal cooperation, and it excludes a well run democracy. The state isn’t just take take take, as Sam and Wonderer have depicted it. Why are there roads? Why are there reservoirs? Why are there parks, environmental protections, and industry regulation in States all over the world? Clearly, the state is giving back. Even when it is tyrannical, it generally provides protection for many if not most, and successful states are those that provide for as many as possible.
Anarchism did exist at one time, until two people (or, two pre-humans) realized (or stumbled upon the fact) that together, they could beat any one person that challenged them. But then three can beat two, and twenty can beat ten, and then you’ve got thousands of people cooperating against fewer thousands. How do yo organize those thousands of people? If every individual makes every decision for themself, there is no cohesion, and there is no strength.
Sure, there are reasonable incentives to act cordially, no doubt, but as people become more and more cordial, the insentive for less cordiallity increases. If no one ever steals, and so no one expects stealing or protects against it, a lone theif thrives. That’s the duality of the situation: at the extreme, cooperation makes cheating infinitely appealing. Cordiallity makes rudeness rewarding. So, people ensure cordiality. Good fences make good neighbors, and good States ensure cordial citizens. It is often risky and not very rewarding to be a vigilante, so we come together to pay someone to take risks, and we make it more rewarding and thus more effective.
The State is inevitable. Even if we disolved States as they exist now (though I don’t know how we’d do that), eventually we would create new states, built up from smaller, sub-state coalitions: gangs, tribes, mafias; feudal lords; city-states; and once again, full-blown nation-states, complete with libertarians and anarchists harping to try it once more. The State is to be expected, its inevitable. Participate in it if you find it wanting.
Yes and no. The state, or more specifically the US Federal gov’t cannot be accused of taking what it is constitutionally endowed with. Case in point, eminent domain hammers the point home rather well.
People, mostly libertarians, are making a sadly empty argument for accusing the state of theft when it comes to eminent domain, as the Federal Gov’t is the default holder of title for the public when it comes to land ownership.
And, again, the state is the proxy for ‘we the people.’
Yes, but none of this deters the fact that the state’s corruption is not only likely, but probably inevitable. The state as institution is therefore accurately characterized as for “being evil” when it is controlled by corrupt interests.
If you disagree, then how is it that the founders claim against King George and leading to the Declaration of Independence is then legitimized?
The state, like any other human creation, can be imbued with the evil of those that control it. If this were not true, then no right to revolution could be said to exist.
Nonsense.
What you just said is this: “The thief has a right to own property he steals because the thief wrote some bullshit document that says he has the right to own the property he steals.”
It really does not sound like you reject that definition at all. Everything you just wrote after that is an apology for organized theft.
Yes, yes and no. The first two are not examples of states and the last one is an example of a state.
I will not deny that the state gives to its citizens. However, that is irrelevant.
Can you understand the concept “The ends do not justify the means” at all? [I am not saying you must agree with it.]
Can you understand that a thief can also be charitable? however, that does not make him less of a thief?
How can you be so sure if you can not define the concept yourself??? I think you are in denial: you accept my definition after all.
Nevertheless, with my definition, I agree. I recognize that many people are evil and The State is inevitable. I simply will not apologize for it and I am not afraid to call it what it is. Apologizing for The State as a concept apologizes for most of the horrors committed by the entire history of mankind.
The Statehood of Nazi Germany made putting people in concentration camps legitimate.
The Statehood of practically every advanced nation a few hundred years ago made slavery legitimate.
The Statehood of practically every single nation today makes corporate warfare legitimate.
The Statehood of China makes butchering its citizens for organ sales legitimate.
– just to name a few.
One more thing: I am convinced that legitimizing Statehood as a concept breeds sociopathic behavior. Logically, it makes no sense to expect a common thief to see any moral difference between himself and a statesman.
) and the functions of the State tend to work in certain directions as opposed to others…