Seems to me like that’s what anarchists and the like prefer to dismiss with a “we’ll get to it when it happens” or"we’ll make sure that doesn’t happen" but fail to see that by doing that, they would become an authority enforcing the order of anarchy and hence the antithesis of their anarchic ideals. Interesting argument, Carleas.
The State interferes with and thwarts my desires.
That is why I dislike it.
No man appreciates an impediment.
I would argue that it does. Intent is significant. A state that takes only to give with interest is hardly a run-of-the-mill thief. The term thief implies selfishness, and there are states that do not exhibit that. Basically, I disagree that the ends don’t justify the means. I think that modern society is quite the end, and justifies the paltry taxation that has largely enabled it.
I think where we differ, Sam, is that I think the State is a benevolent reaction to the evils of the world, where you think it is that evil run amok. Perhaps it is both. Still, I think that, if some State is inevitable, doesn’t it make sense to encourage the benevolent State rather than deride all statehood?
Apaosha, people interfere with and thwart your desires. That’s my point.
Your point is that the thing called “the state” consists of certain people, organized?
Whoopdy-doo. When has anyone viewed the state as possessing some objective reality beyond a name for a group?
You have, when you accused it of interfering with and thwarting your desires. People thwart and interfere with your desires, the State has little to do with it. People may organize, and thwart your desires more efficiently, but it isn’t because they organize that they are interfering.
Basically, the State is empowering other people to thwart your desires. Judging from what I’ve seen of your desires, I’d count that as a point in favor of the State.
So the state is a group of people?
People who attempt to thwart my desires are doing nothing but defending their own selfish desires and attempts at self-preservation through mutual interest; no matter that disinformation is spread regarding “the good of all”. There is no such thing.
The state is just a name for one of these groups of people. Just like clubs, religions, armies and so on are just names for groups of people.
I injected no exaggerated meaning into the word when I used it. You did that when you started this thread.
This is almost a compliment …
If, say, I was trying to kill you; what would you do?
Would you, I wonder, go crying to the police to protect you from the bad man; who has the temerity to be armed; who has the … madness … not to run from conflict?
Or would you do something else?
This is as lightly as I can put it: your perspective is foolhardy. [It is also dangerous.]
Reason: You can never know the intent of a person. I challenge you to think long and hard about that.
I agree: statesmen are worse than the common thieves.
Continue…
… do you see?
I hope you can see what I see in your responses: you agree with my definition up above. With all due respect, you are just avoiding admitting it.
I accept that some statesmen may genuinely exhibit the intent of benevolence. However, I see no intelligent reason to trust them.
Fine. That is where we differ and we probably will never agree. I genuinely believe that your morality is at odds with mine. I have no expectation to convert you. The best that we can do is understand eachother.
No.
Right now, I think the most important thing I can do is to re-iterate: I do not trust you because of your stated beliefs.
You believe that the ends can justify the means. By the way, you are not alone in that attitude.
You can’t reject to give the state authority, because whether you vote or not, the state will have authority. If you live in that state, benefit from its provisions, then you have duty to abide by the elected government. If you did not bother to participate in those elections, the only person you have to blame when you don’t like the way things are going is yourself. You have a voice, but remained silent. As Carleas says, the state is inevitable, so why bitch and moan, why not make a better one. Be proactive.
Which would lead to a country with no voice. Never a good thing.
If we are talking about purely majority rules, then 15 votes in favour of A wins over 14 votes in favour of B. One vote can count.
Because it might make your life easier? Because you have no reason not to trust them?
Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean the world is against you.
Tell that to the people of Tibet.
Re-read what I wrote. The government of Tibet is not elected.
In that case, what you wrote is irrelevant and useless.
Care to elaborate?
Elaborate? Sure. Start with the title of this thread: “What’s “the State”?” We are talking about The State in this thread.
The people of Tibet are under the boot of the Chinese state. Therefore, your “blah blah blah, then you have duty to abide by the elected government.” schpiel does not apply. It does not even apply by your very own words.
You tried to sneak in a connection between “obedience to the state” and “elected government” without justification. Care to elaborate yourself on the merits of that connection?
Hell, scratch that. Do not bother with justifying it because the whole thing should just be scrapped: The State does not have to be elected at all. It has nothing to do with this discussion.
The state does not have to be elected. However it is better for those it controls if it is. There will always be a state. Hence it is up to the people to provide themselves with the best state possible. And if the people elected a government, then providing they are acting as they said they would, there is a duty to obey. Similarly, if the people do not like what the state is doing, then they have the power to influence policy. It may not always work of course, and when that social contract is broken, the duty to obey does not apply.
HumeGotWhat,
Your outlook on the relationships between The State, governments and your fellow man seems religious.
Are you aware that there is a disparity in power among the people within a state??? If you do, you seem not to take it into consideration.
The best for whom???
The people with most of the power will always work to provide themselves with the best state possible for themselves. It is very foolhardy to think otherwise.
Precisely.
It is because these group of people masquarade themselves to be infallible gods.
That is why people believe there to be some objective reality beyond a name or symbol of a group.
And by that acknowledgement it is then alright for people being attacked, exploited,thwarted and enslaved to revolt in killing those who come against them.
Groovy. 
It is a kill or be killed world we live in. Glad to see you are on the gravy train of life Carleas.
Dam I love reading your posts! 
This is how the weak operates. Knowing that physically by themselves they are powerless they create symbols and ideals to defend themselves tricking people into joining their causes.
Only the weak need protection from those who would eat and swallow them up.
What is the government or state? It is a collective monopoly that steals from the public and exploits people for it’s own selfish interests all the while it pretends to care about equality or the freedom of all people which in reality in every new generation it tries to find new ways in controlling them.
Is there anyone here who has somthing that says otherwise?