What's "the State"?

[omar]

Hello Samuel.

The Original Post set the scope of our agenda at finding what is the State. I am reminding you of this because you are trying to hijack this debate. But in any case, the posited answer is “everyone is the State”. This is a generalization. That means that it is not applicable solely to one particular State or even an existing State but an idea of a State. Let me now beef up this definition a bit. A State can be defined as Weber did:“monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory,”. It is a political association. Within States there are minorities which are coerced into the State. The State is not rational. A State is a necessity based on the basic fact that there is no unanimity in any social group, but rather than having each individual pursue their own ends, which would destroy the social group and weaken it in the face of other groups, individuals place their right to violence in a communal “fund”, the State, in exchange for certain other rights to sue, to be heard, and otherwise retain the means towards the same end, their interests, but throught a different set of means, which are the police, lawyers, laws, etcetera. A State is everyone, recognized in some fashion (blood, religion or law, to mention a few), within a group. In modern States you have sometimes add-mixtures of other former States. The newest State that now carries within the old states of the region has the challenge of becoming a legitimate voice for the former states, therefore eliminating their (those former states) existence. The identity should be, for example, that of “Iraqi”, instead of “Iraqi Kurd”, which basically still retains the older alligeance. Same with Tibet. The region’s latest violence was ethnically determined. It was targeted violence towards non-Tibetans and it is fueled by suspicions of negligence, of marginalization by the goverment against their region based on their Tibetan status. This is like the reversed racism we see in the United States. Blacks feel that their race alone still determines their treatment by a white goverment and that fairness is compromised. What I am trying to show is that this process of adoption of a State is not easy and is worsened by economic difficulties. Tibet’s recent flurry of violence is triggered by rising inflation. The financial prosperity of the State as a whole, at every level, and for every ethnic group is the easiest way for the new State to erase the older State’s affiliation. War, thus, is a known method to solidify, an ethnically diverse group into a State. I hope this has helped.

Carleas wrote: Who secures for you the rights you claim?

You responded: Stupid irrelevant question.
O- No question is irrelevant and this question he has asked is actually crucial because a State that cannot secure YOUR rights ceases to be YOUR State in YOUR opinion. When a State has no use for you, one is bound to reclaim his/her right to violence; that is, he quits the State and becomes a rioter, or emigrates or a revolutionary.

You say: Proof: look at the people of Tibet. Nobody “secures” their rights. In fact, the State under which they are submitted violates their rights.
O- The riots were ethic violence.

— However, according to you guys, that is peachy keen because you guys automatically defend the State and because, according to you guys, Everybody Is The State so therefore, the people of Tibet must be quite happy with being subjugated by Chinese statesmen. Right??
O- Not saying that but that a functioning State, and I am not saying that the PRC is a functioning State, is everyone by virtue of which, any particular group within would not have to resort to violence to advocate their position. That said, the latest violence in Tibet is related to ethnic sesitivities. It was not just the Chinese that felt the brunt of it. As is sometimes the case, malcontents seized on an opportunity to riot, regardless of the validity or justification and even in VIOLATION of the rights of bussiness owners from a different ethnic group. Why are you not advocating for the right to property for non-Tibetans? Their hotels, bussinessess and safety were violated. What would you have the Chinese govt do? Let Tibetans subjugate non-Tibetans? You cry for the Tibetans rights but where are the pleas for the rights of non-Tibetans when the rioters violate their rights? Canadian tourist John Kenwood after coming back from Tibet told The Times about the experience: “It’s hard to pick a side in what happened, I agree that the Tibetans have their own culture, but I can’t agree with what people did. After a while, it was not about Tibetan freedom any more.” (from wiki)

— You guys fail to accept the difference between “securing” something and “deserving” something.
Just because somebody can not secure their own human rights, it does not deserve any human rights.
O- “Rights” are man-made conventions. What determines desert?

— Do you guys believe that people deserve human rights??? because that is what I am talking about.
O- By talking about “deserving” you enter a fantasy world most of us will not follow. I am not saying that anyone, as any other animal, has God-given rights. Rights, in a world of competition for scarce resources, are brought within social groups. We come into this world incapable of securing even our own life. Already at birth we depend on the breast of our mothers to survive. A woman can die in child-birth. Already there is a presupposed social group, a family or tribe with defined roles and accompanying “rights”. It is not about deserving human rights, but that these “rights” are a by-product of our evolution and which necessitated social groups, which are the guarantors of said “rights”. Human rights, almost always, express the bare minimun needed for a worthy human existance. But it is not that we are born with these or that we deserve them; they are simply by-products created by our social origins.

[omar]

Hello Carleas:

You know we agree on many points on this idea of the State but you said something that doesn’t seem right for me about States:

— The State is not the government. The state is the thing governed, and the thing which empowers the government.
O- That is correct.

— A particular state can equate to a particular government (which is the ideal in communism, and perhaps democracy), but they aren’t one in the same. Tibetans are part of the Chinese state, but do not have representation in the Chinese government.
O- Until the Tibetans see themselves within the regulating body or goverment, it will not and has no reason to consider itself a part of the Chinese State. When a minority group (like the Tibetans) come to form part of the police, the State’s legislature, it’s military leadership etc, they become part of the State, with a shared interest as everyone else. If that does not happen then there remain tow States: the Chinese State which occupies Tibetan State territories.

[omar]

Apaosha I would like to give you my opinion:

— How do you reach the conclusion that people who are oppressed by the State, or exploited by the State, or who have no choice but to give the State what it demands; are part of the State itself?
O- The United States requires of it’s citizens to pay it’s tax. This is not debatable or optional. If you earn a living through the securities provided by the State you must pay the State which allowed you to benefit. There are people who are and then there are some who feel “oppressed”. If you are oppressed by the State, such as black people in the institution of slavery, then you are NOT part of that State. If on the other hand you “feel” oppressed, as african americans nowdays feel oppressed, that does not mean that you are actually oppressed nor that you are not a part of the State, because you have representation within the institutions of the State and have legal means to battle for your rights when you feel them violated.

— You said that the State is everyone;
O- As defined by the State and not the “one”. It does not matter if a particular individual is of the opinion that another person is NOT a citizen. It only matters whether the State recognizes the person as a citizen.

— should people who do not benefit from being part of the State, or are constrained by it, not consider leaving it? (And don’t give me some socialist spiel)
O- Absolutely, if the State gives them no means by which to better their conditions legally. But, if you are a part of the State, that is, you’re represented, involved in making it’s laws, in it’s national defence, in the security of it’s leaders, then the State has an interest in keeping you and will trade off some of it’s power for your cooperation in pursuit of it’s interests.

— I also want to know why you think, for the sake of argument, that if we as a species collectively produce this thing called the State, why this “state” of affairs should be thought of as favourable or be permitted to continue?
O- We do not choose a State. We are born into it. Even your family is a small state and without some form of it you could not survive as a new born on your own.

— Thirdly, if you believe that the State is concerned with the “good of all” please account for why this is not the case.
O- Again, as before, there is the presumption of an us/them distinction within the State when in fact the state, in which we are born, is simply “us” and other states are “them”. I have already gone into great detail with Samuel, so seek there the finer points, but for my response to you, the point I make is that there are states within larger states…look at Lebanon, Israel and other states in the Middle East. The success of the larger states in absorbing the smaller states within it is about determining identity. The ideal citizen is not identified african-american, but transcends this association and is identified by his legal association with the State, not his blood (it could also be determined by religion or ethnicity, which are not easy to divide but I am just pointing to other forms of social bonds that then become standards of states membership), but by his legal status. Of course, this is not easy and in fact we find many instances in ancient regions, with social bonds that are older than the State, Kurds, Sunnis, Shias instead of Iraqis. Have they forsworn pursuing a Kurdish State? That is the question asked by Turks, for example. Because they may not have abandoned their Kurdish identity, the Kurdish State exists as an idea, a possibility, and vis-a-vis other States, a threat. Thus, kurdish turks, although living withing the Turk-State, may be seen as a threat and opposed, oppressed etc, because they represent a non-turkish state within the sovereign State’s region.
“Good for all” is somewhat inaccurate. “Good for everyone who shares our interest” is more accurate.

[Carleas]

Apaosha, the state is not omniscient and it is not perfect. It is possible for a state to needlessly oppress some of its memebers. However, I would argue that that is rarely the case, that it rarely persists for long, and that when it is the case it is motivated by the greater good.
Lets say that someone’s only joy in life is murder. The state may ‘oppress’ that person, by limiting their freedom to seek happiness. Ultimately, though, the move improves the lives of more individuals than it harms. Similarly, there are likely a significant number of people who want to see Tibet as a docile part of the Chinese whole. Whether they are right is questionable, I agree, but I don’t think it is obviously wrong. Recent uprisings in Tibet were racially motivated, and targeted non-ethnically-Tibetan immigrants. Such sentiments are damaging for a lot of people, so it may be that more people benefit from Chinese control than harmed by it (remember, Tibetans are not the only people affected by what happens to Tibetans).

As I’ve said before, the existence of the State entails sacrifice. But I maintain that it does overwhelmingly more good than it bad, and I don’t think you’ve shown that it doesn’t. Of the thousands of states in the world, you are stuck on one single state doing questionably justified harm to an extreme minority of its make-up. That’s not to justify those actions, but relative to the greater majority of the actions of the greater majority of the states, they are not enough to condemn all of Statedom.

Joker, who grows your food? Who built your house? Who paved the roads you drive on? Did you do all those things yourself? Did you set up society on your own, and deliver to yourself all the benefits that the modern world secures you (food, medicine, technology, safety, etc.)? You might deny your responsibility to others, but it is obvious that you benefit as everyone else from the actions of others, and that your actions affect the lives of others. No man is an island, and as I’ve said before, I think you’re taking the benefits of the State for granted while you try to succeed.

Omar, I think the line is blurry. The Tibetan state was recently autonomous, and was annexed by the Chinese state. Eventually, we must consider them to be one and the same. When that happens is questionable. Even moreso, there is a question as to how many levels of statehood we want to talk about. Is a US state a state? The US is certainly a state; is the North American Union a state? The EU? Is the entire world a state as well. On all these levels, the people they subsume are specially affected by each other, and they share a destiny that is specially common. If the state is not the government, then a state can be defined at any level, and can be usefully defined at all of them.
Currently, Humanists are almost complete devoid of representation in the US governement. Are they, then, to be considered a separate state? Are native americans still a separate state?
I think that, in the case of Tibet, there at least three significant states to consider: the Tibetan state, the Chinese state without Tibet, and the Chinese state that contains them both.

Another thought (sorry if this feels disjointed, I keep hitting submit only to find new points to respond to): Africans in the time of slavery had representation in the state as they came to represent a large enough population within it. Because they were able to revolt, to escape, to write treatise on the ills of slavery, and to fight for their own freedom, the line of when they gained representation in the US state is, again, a blurry one. Even as slaves, they benefitted from the protection of the laws, and they eventually had enough representation in the state to be freed and, later, enfranchised.
Nothing as abstract as the State is clear cut.

[apaosha]

The United States requires of it’s citizens to pay it’s tax. This is not debatable or optional.

I do not take well to cohersion.

Like I said; the State is an obstruction and a hindrance to me. I do not appreciate it butting-in on my activities.

This, however, does not preclude me from taking advantage of any socialist endeavours that might benefit me. The more one-sided the arrangement, the better for me.

As defined by the State and not the “one”. It does not matter if a particular individual is of the opinion that another person is NOT a citizen. It only matters whether the State recognizes the person as a citizen.

So I am a “citizen” merely because I have been labeled as one since I was born?

Absolutely, if the State gives them no means by which to better their conditions legally. But, if you are a part of the State, that is, you’re represented, involved in making it’s laws, in it’s national defence, in the security of it’s leaders, then the State has an interest in keeping you and will trade off some of it’s power for your cooperation in pursuit of it’s interests.

Or, as is evident, ones own personal desires are ignored in deference to the State, which punishes anyone who acts or thinks contrary to it’s objectives. Democracy is non-existent; what little influence voters have was given solely as a matter of expedience, reducing politics to a popularity contest based on fashionable memes - the democratic nomination, for example.

Again, as before, there is the presumption of an us/them distinction within the State when in fact the state, in which we are born, is simply “us” and other states are “them”.

I do not identify with the State. The State is not another word for any social group. The State is the Government (a group of people) and its enforcers consisting of the bureaucracy, the police and the military.

I am not a part of, and I do not support, any of these. Hence, there is no “us”.

The success of the larger states in absorbing the smaller states within it is about determining identity. The ideal citizen is not identified african-american, but transcends this association and is identified by his legal association with the State, not his blood (it could also be determined by religion or ethnicity, which are not easy to divide but I am just pointing to other forms of social bonds that then become standards of states membership), but by his legal status.

Hmm …

I remember Satyr mentioning something like this.
You see, the victim must be isolated, disarmed of any power, cut off from and robbed of cultural or personal identity and made dependent and unquestioning. The victim is then ripe for exploitation as a citizen within the hive, the worth of his existence and its merit determined by his new overlord. Sickening.

My identity is not defined by the State.
Quite the contrary.

“Good for all” is somewhat inaccurate. “Good for everyone who shares our interest” is more accurate.

Indeed. The Hive is frightening is it not?

[apaosha]

Apaosha, the state is not omniscient and it is not perfect. It is possible for a state to needlessly oppress some of its memebers. However, I would argue that that is rarely the case, that it rarely persists for long, and that when it is the case it is motivated by the greater good.

Samuel is right. You’re hopelessly naive.

Lets say that someone’s only joy in life is murder. The state may ‘oppress’ that person, by limiting their freedom to seek happiness. Ultimately, though, the move improves the lives of more individuals than it harms.

Indeed, happiness is subjective.
Also, the herd seeks to suppress disruptive influences to itself. So, anything which is challenging and creative is exterminated.

The State is stagnation.

Similarly, there are likely a significant number of people who want to see Tibet as a docile part of the Chinese whole. Whether they are right is questionable, I agree, but I don’t think it is obviously wrong.

Right and wrong??

?!

A country has been invaded and conquered and you are wondering whether its people are “right” or “wrong” for resisting?

Ugh.

I agree, but I don’t think it is obviously wrong. Recent uprisings in Tibet were racially motivated, and targeted non-ethnically-Tibetan immigrants. Such sentiments are damaging for a lot of people, so it may be that more people benefit from Chinese control than harmed by it (remember, Tibetans are not the only people affected by what happens to Tibetans).

Oh god …

Please tell me what you would do if you were a part of an ancient, peaceful country that was invaded by foreigners from a country like China; a form of State even worse than the western model, if not as insidious.

As I’ve said before, the existence of the State entails sacrifice. But I maintain that it does overwhelmingly more good than it bad, and I don’t think you’ve shown that it doesn’t. Of the thousands of states in the world, you are stuck on one single state doing questionably justified harm to an extreme minority of its make-up. That’s not to justify those actions, but relative to the greater majority of the actions of the greater majority of the states, they are not enough to condemn all of Statedom.

Carleas, gratitude is not mandatory.

[Carleas]

“You’re hopelessly naive,” i.e. “I am out of rational arguments, so I am once again resorting to ad hominems, emotional appeals, rhetoric, and catch phrases to make my case.”
“Suppress disruptive influences”? Did I mention that the state insn’t the governement? Because states have removed their governments, being the “disruptive influence” again and again.
“The state is stagnation”? Explain.
“Gratitude is not mandatory,” sure, but you can’t maintain that you are self-made, or the conceit that you owe your continued prosperity to no one but yourself, or even that you do not benefit from the existence of the state. You don’t have to be grateful, but don’t take it for granted.

[apaosha]

“You’re hopelessly naive,” i.e. “I am out of rational arguments, so I am once again resorting to ad hominems, emotional appeals, rhetoric, and catch phrases to make my case.”

I wonder …

Nah.

“Suppress disruptive influences”? Did I mention that the state insn’t the governement? Because states have removed their governments, being the “disruptive influence” again and again.

I rest my case.

No matter how much you want it to happen, the State is not the people. The people are the subjects of the State. Whenever there has been a revolution a new state came into being from out of corpse of the old. Superficial ideals and codes of conduct make no difference; the act of constraining governance and enforcement is still being performed.
Who led the revolutionaries? Who organised them? Who gave them their ideals and motivated them?
Who, and what, punished them for insubordination?
One State overthrew another. Not the people Not “us”.

I am beginning to believe there is no “people”. There is certainly no “us”, Carleas.

“The state is stagnation”? Explain.

The State is the product of the herd massing together into a group for the sake of mutual self-interest. This arrangement exists to preserve the status quo and the present, from the danger of change.

Whenever a new age arose, a state died to make it happen.

“Gratitude is not mandatory,” sure, but you can’t maintain that you are self-made, or the conceit that you owe your continued prosperity to no one but yourself, or even that you do not benefit from the existence of the state. You don’t have to be grateful, but don’t take it for granted.

One takes advantage where one can …

[Joker]

Joker, who grows your food? Who built your house? Who paved the roads you drive on? Did you do all those things yourself? Did you set up society on your own, and deliver to yourself all the benefits that the modern world secures you (food, medicine, technology, safety, etc.)? You might deny your responsibility to others, but it is obvious that you benefit as everyone else from the actions of others, and that your actions affect the lives of others. No man is an island, and as I’ve said before, I think you’re taking the benefits of the State for granted while you try to succeed.

Why should I be responsible to anything? If you can’t answer that question you have nothing.

I reject the notion of being responsible to anyone or anything outside of myself therefore I deny nothing.

Just because there is all this material clutter around me created by other people which sometimes I selfishly use for my own gains doesn’t mean I am “morally” obligated to give anything back by my consumption.

And since all these people who create these things allow me no social interaction, happiness, mobility or freedom I am even less inclined to care about them in doing anything for them.

I am more inclined to show them no mercy, pity or allegiance in my dealings with them.

I am more inclined to turn my head when their lives are in danger or threatened.

[Carleas]

Apaosha, I think you’re using ‘state’ differently. I see states as dynamic entities that change as societies change, where you seem to see them as dying with each improvement. That’s fine. They’re still inevitable, and they seem to die readily when they are outdated. They also clearly serve a purpose. I can live with all of that.

Joker, if by “responsibility” you mean simply “only those things to which I declare myself ‘responsible’”, then of course I can’t prove that you’re responsible to anyone or anything. But you’ve just defined it that way. I can say you’re indebted, in that society has given you most of your ability and all your opportunity; I can say that you regularly make use of the benefits of society; I can make a damned good case that what you want is better achievable within the context of society than without. But if you define the word as you seem to, I concede that it is impossible to prove that you are responsible to anything you don’t feel like being responsible to.

[Joker]

Hey Apaosha-

We are only hopeless empty vessels without the state therefore we should be glad when we are filled with it’s “goodness”.

I believe that is what Carleas is trying to illustrate here.

[Joker]

@Carleas

Apaosha, I think you’re using ‘state’ differently. I see states as dynamic entities that change as societies change, where you seem to see them as dying with each improvement. That’s fine. They’re still inevitable, and they seem to die readily when they are outdated. They also clearly serve a purpose. I can live with all of that.

Joker, if by “responsibility” you mean simply “only those things to which I declare myself ‘responsible’”, then of course I can’t prove that you’re responsible to anyone or anything. But you’ve just defined it that way. I can say you’re indebted, in that society has given you most of your ability and all your opportunity; I can say that you regularly make use of the benefits of society; I can make a damned good case that what you want is better achievable within the context of society than without. But if you define the word as you seem to, I concede that it is impossible to prove that you are responsible to anything you don’t feel like being responsible to.

Joker, if by “responsibility” you mean simply “only those things to which I declare myself ‘responsible’”, then of course I can’t prove that you’re responsible to anyone or anything. But you’ve just defined it that way. I can say you’re indebted, in that society has given you most of your ability and all your opportunity; I can say that you regularly make use of the benefits of society; I can make a damned good case that what you want is better achievable within the context of society than without. But if you define the word as you seem to, I concede that it is impossible to prove that you are responsible to anything you don’t feel like being responsible to.

Debt means that a person accepts responsibility in being indebted. I don’t. That is null and void.

most of your ability

By accident or mere circumstance of being born in it.

opportunity;

What opportunities?

I can say that you regularly make use of the benefits of society; I can make a damned good case that what you want is better achievable within the context of society than without.

No you can’t. You know nothing about me beyond my philosophical ramblings on the web.

[Carleas]

. . . I think knowing that you use the web, the power grid, the phone lines, all the technology involved is all I need. But on to of that, I know that you embrace Nihilism, you identify your ramblings as ‘philosophical’, and you employ a language that someone else taught you. These are all products of large and well structured human societies. States.

[omar]

Carleas, perhaps I was not clear with my response as I was to others.

— Omar, I think the line is blurry.
O- The “line”, if any, is always blurry because of the lack of unanimity. Nothing is clear-cut about human political affairs.

— The Tibetan state was recently autonomous, and was annexed by the Chinese state. Eventually, we must consider them to be one and the same.
O- It is not what “we must” but what “they themselves must”. Identity cannot be coerced. Even, if for example, we recognize One Iraqi State, the people on it’s northern region have to identify themselves as that in order for the Iraqi State to be their State. What we are seeing in Iraq are the growing pains of a State and both mother and child, to use the metaphor are at risk. How will the goverment gain the support of sub-states? Pretty much the same way in which it has been able to gain the support of Shias like Sadar(?). Basically you are correct when you say that the State is everyone…in an ideal State. In Iraq that has not yet been achieved. What we see now happening is that officials are reaching out to involve everyone in the process whereby the goverment then becomes representative of all factions within it’s sovereign borders. The next thing that needs to happen is that people place their allegieance to the Iraqi State, or else you are simply going to have corruption. Don’t get me wrong, we do have corrupt States, but this type of corruption could very well cause revolutions because other groups would claim that they are the true voice of the Iraqi people when in fact there might not be as of yet.

— When that happens is questionable.
O- Of course I agree. But as long as there are ethnic lines of demarcation within the population the chance exist for a split. Look at Kosovo.

— Even moreso, there is a question as to how many levels of statehood we want to talk about.
O- I am not really talking about statehoods, but states and that these states are social groups=everyone.

— Is a US state a state? The US is certainly a state
O- But why is it a state? Because everygroup is aptly represented and the highes alligeance, for the majority, is their identity as American. I think this is tied with the active foreign politics in which the US has been involved since WW2. The Cold War also contributed to that American identity. Everywhere I read about history I find that the issue of State, it’s solidity, is enhanced by the clear and present Other. It helps to create the idea of “Us”.

— Is the entire world a state as well.
O- An interesting question, though you may not have given it that much thought. There is an idea of a global State. A dream perhaps? League of Nations, EU, NATO, UN…these are all based on the idea of a “Global Community”…a very humanistic idea but traceable to the religious concept of “Catholic”. I believe that such global entities are doomed to failure by the lack of a real Other…as the saying goes “we can love everyone…as long as there are enough left to hate”. Gene Rodenberry imagined a world that suddenly became unified and took, collectively, to the stars. No surprise, this coincided with the appearance on Earth of that alien space-ship, a new Other.

— If the state is not the government, then a state can be defined at any level, and can be usefully defined at all of them.
O- Correct.

— Currently, Humanists are almost complete devoid of representation in the US governement. Are they, then, to be considered a separate state? Are native americans still a separate state?
O- Ideology is a very weak identity secondary to blood, race and faith. Humanist claim not to be a religion. I don’t see how they cannot be represented in a State that is separate from religion. Humanism is the glue of that unites these United States…at least more than any other. To me the idea of a Supreme Court, dictating interpretations of the Law by human reason alone, not through revelation or by using revealed scripture, is a humanistic ideal.

— Africans in the time of slavery had representation in the state as they came to represent a large enough population within it.
O- Incorrect. Slaves were not allowed a vote and did not even count as a full person…I think they were the equivalent of a 1/2 white citizen. Of course, it was white racists who made of the math.

— Because they were able to revolt, to escape
O- In each case breaking the Law of the State.

— to write treatise on the ills of slavery
O- A benefit of freedom of speech, but almost useless to a largely uneducated group. Of thousands of slaves only a few books were written by slaves.

— and to fight for their own freedom
O- A process that took nearly a hundred years and by some standards, is still on-going…of course these are minorities that think that the white man poisons their malt liquor and that is why there are so many black men in jail. Notice one thing though: The more field was covered by african americans in times of war, the more convincing their case to be full-fledged american citizens. The slaves gained their freedom early on and throughout, by their military service and military campaigns. Need I mention, again, are the very conditions that eliminate differences among the soldiers within one army and are replaced by a spirit of union in the face of an Other?

[omar]

Hello apaosha:

— I do not take well to cohersion.
O- Neither do I but for some reason, paying taxes has benefits which out-weight the discomfort. Do you live in the US?

— Like I said; the State is an obstruction and a hindrance to me.
O- What do you do for a living? Where were you born? Not which country, but in a cave or in a hospital?

— I do not appreciate it butting-in on my activities.
O- What are these “activities”?

— This, however, does not preclude me from taking advantage of any socialist endeavours that might benefit me.
O- Hence, you approve of taxes. Not on you, perhaps, but certainly on everyone else, for your benefit without cost.

— The more one-sided the arrangement, the better for me.
O- No doubt. I have the same philosophy. Uncle Sam is going to get his buck from you regardless so you must get your buck back and then some in any which way you can.

— So I am a “citizen” merely because I have been labeled as one since I was born?
O- Unless you’re born on a deserted and uncharted island. Otherwise, whether in the US, Spain, or something else with a name, you become “it’s” name with a modifier: “-an”, “ard” etc, etc.

— Or, as is evident, ones own personal desires are ignored in deference to the State, which punishes anyone who acts or thinks contrary to it’s objectives.
O- Which represent the objectives of a majority of constituents.

— Democracy is non-existent
O- Depends opn how you define “democracy”.

— what little influence voters have was given solely as a matter of expedience, reducing politics to a popularity contest based on fashionable memes - the democratic nomination, for example.
O- Even if I was to agree with you, which I don’t, the alternative is worse. I rather have popularity constest than riots and ethnic cleansins. I rather be in the US than in any african nation, for example. The democratic nomination is Democracy at it’s best. It is reverse machiavellian strategy. Instead of the people being divided and therefore conquered, the would-be Leading Party is supposed to be, under democratic theory, divided and conquered, or weakened, by the “true” sovereign: the People. What you have in McCain is a situation in which democracy was superfluous. We need right away the People, their People at least, intetion and choice.

— I do not identify with the State.
O- Are you an anarchist then?

— The State is not another word for any social group.
O- So you say.

— The State is the Government (a group of people)
O- So a “social group” is not a group of people"??? Nevertheless: State is not the goverment. Goverment is a by-product of the State.

— and its enforcers consisting of the bureaucracy, the police and the military.
O- The idea of a State precedes these institutions. In fact, the military often removes goverments, so that rather than an enforcer of the goverment it can be a threat to a goverment.

— I am not a part of, and I do not support
O- Do you pay taxes? if so then you do pay their salaries.

— Hence, there is no “us”.
O- If you pay taxes, there is.

— I remember Satyr mentioning something like this.
You see, the victim must be isolated, disarmed of any power, cut off from and robbed of cultural or personal identity and made dependent and unquestioning. The victim is then ripe for exploitation as a citizen within the hive, the worth of his existence and its merit determined by his new overlord. Sickening.
O- Again this fastidious victimization. Not everything is a tragedy. People are very much like ants, bees etc-- social animals is what philosophers have called the human race. Is it any wonder how much ants and bees resemble human organization? Oh but you make it a tragedy, a rape of the human soul, his freedom, his natural autonomy…not mentioning that the earlies stage of human development is where all of this “isolation”, “disarmament”, robbery of “personal identity”…as if we are born with one and don’t simply create one from available molds, role models, parents peers, educators in a word: society. That a personal identity is internalization of types we encounter and that if there are “memes” these point to the “herd” mentality in any person. A child is already “dependednt”, already “unquestioning”, and if you wish to continue this narrative of victimization then, yes, a child, and you too were a child, is a victim of their human condition, Nature, “God”-- ?, that drops them onto a world without self-sufficiency. As I said, the mechanisms are already in place. The State is only the extrapolation, the magnifying of natural tendencies inherent to the social animal.

— My identity is not defined by the State.
O- I am not saying that this is what always defines a person. There is not ONE self but several selves. As Kenneth Gergen calls it a “Saturated Self”. We are defined by family, by religion, by race, whatever else…but also by our land, our place of birth, our place of work, our cultural heritage, our social group, our tribe, our family and it’s values…this is the State, or the idea of the State. “Mother-land”, “Father-land”, “Patria”…need I add to a list of clear linguistic remnants of the process deliniated above? Oh, but this all don’t apply to you, I am sure. How could I know? I would commit a logical sin. You could be special…

[1Samuel8]

@omar

O- No question is irrelevant and this question he has asked is actually crucial because a State that cannot secure YOUR rights ceases to be YOUR State in YOUR opinion.

No, that was not my opinion. That is why I said it was an irrelevant question. I do not care whether a person has the physical capability to secure his rights.
Your insistence on this issue is utter nonsense. It is akin to looking at a pick-pocket and saying: “Well, too bad! His victim could not secure his wallet, therefore, his victim does not have a right to his wallet! That makes sense to me!”

@omar

O- By talking about “deserving” you enter a fantasy world most of us will not follow. I am not saying that anyone, as any other animal, has God-given rights. Rights, in a world of competition for scarce resources, are brought within social groups.

In that case, the mafia has every right to claim moral authority over the government or anybody else for that matter. Is that what you are saying?

@Carleas

I can say you’re indebted, in that society has given you most of your ability and all your opportunity; I can say that you regularly make use of the benefits of society; I can make a damned good case that what you want is better achievable within the context of society than without.

Irrelevant. Your “case” is frightening and dangerous because it can justify horrible things like slavery.
A slave gets fed and clothed by a slave-master. In fact, a slave can be beaten so bad into submission or born into slavery so that he has no ability to live on his own outside of slavery. That does not justify slavery just because the slave regularly makes use of the benefits of a society.

@Carleas

. . . I think knowing that you use the web, the power grid, the phone lines, all the technology involved is all I need.

Are you kidding???
First, you still have to prove any indebtedness. You know, like how the slave should not be indebted to the slave-master just because the slave-master provides food and clothing.
Second, you would have to prove that the web, the power grid, the phone lines and all of the technology can not otherwise exist or be invented without the state.

Like I said before, I do not believe you have the capacity to recognize or even answer your own question What Is "The State? yet. It is no wonder that the best you can do is to say “Everybody Is The State” for a definition. It makes it very easy for you even though your definition is filled with logical inconsistencies.

---

The State does a lot of things, no doubt.

Many things that the State does which are pretended to be “good” can also be supplied without theft and without coercion. How these “good” things are supplied is a different discussion altogether but it seems clear that many of you State-apologists are caught in an intellectual rut because you think that without The State, you would not have any of these benefits. Therefore, you determine that The State is a “good” thing or a moral authority.

[Carleas]

Omar, I think I mean to say the same thing as you. When you say to Apaosha that the state “represent the objectives of a majority of constituents,” and to me that “the highes alligeance, for the majority, is their identity as American,” you include people like Apaosha and Samuel as members of the state, even though they don’t identify as such, and maintain that the state is not protecting their interests. Similarly, I include slaves as members of the early US state, despite the fact that the governement didn’t recognize them or represent them as full and equal citizens. I billionaire in the modern US has far more than twice the influence in an election than does a high-school-drop-out minimum-wage worker. They are both still members of the state.
I don’t think the other is necessary for de facto states, but it is for states of sentiment.

Samuel, let me refine my definition for you in so many words, because discussing it at length doesn’t seem to be enough to show that it can only be so-well captured in one sentence. The state is all people who organize their actions on any relevant level in relation to each other. This means that a state comprises all people who interact on a whatever level you choose to consider their interaction.
To illustrate:
If you and your neighbor are the only two people on an island, and you make an agreement whereby a line is drawn down the middle and you each get half, you have an extremely simple state. It becomes more obvious if you have a hundred people, and you divide the island into a hundred, and some chunks have beaches, others have fruit trees, others have fresh water, and you all want to survive. Even if everything works out perfectly so that everyone has something that someone else needs, so no one needs to use force or theft or whatever, the agreements that are made to govern how people get by on the island create a simple state. This is why your definition fails: you are defining a limited subset of states, and in a biased way at that. Your definition doesn’t capture states of the sort I have just proposed. That’s why I keep reiterating that states are not governments, they are social arrangements. They can include governments, but they are more than those governements.

[apaosha]

@Carleas

Apaosha, I think you’re using ‘state’ differently. I see states as dynamic entities that change as societies change, where you seem to see them as dying with each improvement. That’s fine. They’re still inevitable, and they seem to die readily when they are outdated. They also clearly serve a purpose. I can live with all of that.

The State is the society, the controlling, governing mechanism. It assimilates and adapts, but remains the State.

@omar

O- Neither do I but for some reason, paying taxes has benefits which out-weight the discomfort.

I will not barter my freedom for the chance to be given things which I can take.

O- What do you do for a living? Where were you born? Not which country, but in a cave or in a hospital?

A job is exclusive to the State? A hospital or medical facility is exclusive to a State?
Were I born in a cave, ought I feel gratitude towards the cave?
Again; gratitude is not mandatory.

@omar

O- What are these “activities”?

@omar

O- Hence, you approve of taxes. Not on you, perhaps, but certainly on everyone else, for your benefit without cost.

Of course. I’m a self-serving egomaniac and proud of it!

@omar

O- No doubt. I have the same philosophy. Uncle Sam is going to get his buck from you regardless so you must get your buck back and then some in any which way you can.

How many people get in trouble for tax evasion in your country, I wonder …?

@omar

O- Unless you’re born on a deserted and uncharted island. Otherwise, whether in the US, Spain, or something else with a name, you become “it’s” name with a modifier: “-an”, “ard” etc, etc.

Yeah; you’re not given a choice, are you? You’re co-opted before your even mentally cogniscent of the consequences.
So, the only option is secession.
Or Joker’s approach …

@omar

O- Which represent the objectives of a majority of constituents.

Indeed. But what is one to do when this “majority” conflicts with ones own imperatives? Petition the local politician-whore?
Please …
In democracy, the mob rules. It’s been true since the days of Rome. Observe how the influence of the media has directed legislation in the past 2 decades.

@omar

O- Even if I was to agree with you, which I don’t, the alternative is worse. I rather have popularity constest than riots and ethnic cleansins. I rather be in the US than in any african nation, for example. The democratic nomination is Democracy at it’s best. It is reverse machiavellian strategy. Instead of the people being divided and therefore conquered, the would-be Leading Party is supposed to be, under democratic theory, divided and conquered, or weakened, by the “true” sovereign: the People. What you have in McCain is a situation in which democracy was superfluous. We need right away the People, their People at least, intetion and choice.

But their is no people. There is no mass crowd to which we are all affiliated. This a lie designed to make you identify yourself with the act of governance, to participate in it and thus surrender to it.
What there is, is the herd who keep their heads down and in everything believe only the opinion that has been given them, there is the State, which consists of a parasitical arrangement between the herd and its sheperds, and there is everyone else; divided, leaderless and uninfluenced.
What do you think arises from this arrangement, extremely generalised as it is? Certainly not the common good. At least tyrants are honest about what they do.

O- Are you an anarchist then?

Not really.

— The State is not another word for any social group.
O- So you say.

— The State is the Government (a group of people)
O- So a “social group” is not a group of people"??? Nevertheless: State is not the goverment. Goverment is a by-product of the State.

The State is a group of people who govern and control other (groups of) people.
Simple as.

O- Do you pay taxes?

O- Again this fastidious victimization. Not everything is a tragedy. People are very much like ants, bees etc-- social animals is what philosophers have called the human race. Is it any wonder how much ants and bees resemble human organization? Oh but you make it a tragedy, a rape of the human soul, his freedom, his natural autonomy…not mentioning that the earlies stage of human development is where all of this “isolation”, “disarmament”, robbery of “personal identity”…as if we are born with one and don’t simply create one from available molds, role models, parents peers, educators in a word: society. That a personal identity is internalization of types we encounter and that if there are “memes” these point to the “herd” mentality in any person. A child is already “dependednt”, already “unquestioning”, and if you wish to continue this narrative of victimization then, yes, a child, and you too were a child, is a victim of their human condition, Nature, “God”-- ?, that drops them onto a world without self-sufficiency. As I said, the mechanisms are already in place. The State is only the extrapolation, the magnifying of natural tendencies inherent to the social animal.

It is true that one adapts to ones environment as one matures.
And?
You are confusing the State as any form of sociality again, I fear …

We are defined by family, by religion, by race, whatever else…but also by our land, our place of birth, our place of work, our cultural heritage, our social group, our tribe, our family and it’s values…

…and by our personally-determined motivations and past actions, which are limited by any constraining force, such as the State.

this is the State, or the idea of the State. “Mother-land”, “Father-land”, “Patria”…need I add to a list of clear linguistic remnants of the process deliniated above?

I have already explained what I regard the State to be.
I don’t have a “Patria” with which I identify …

You could be special…

You could be right …

[apaosha]

@Carleas:

Again, not any form of sociality …

[omar]

Hello apaosha:

— I will not barter my freedom for the chance to be given things which I can take.
O- What is that which the State can give but which you can also take? But what is funny about would be stateless individuals, such as yourself, is that it is you, more than anyone else that benefits from the existence of the State, not because of what you can take but because of what it gives. In a world without a State, your individuality would kill you…I mean, get you killed. No one, including you, is absolutely independent, nor free. You have your Mama to thank for your being here today. If she gave birth to you in a hospital then your existence was also the result and depended upon the existence of a State. Does this mean that you have to feel indebted to “It”? Not at all, but most humans do have feelings of wanting to belong to something…again sociability is a bitch, but is part of who we are. But I don’t know you: You might be a special kind of monkey, deserving further study.

— A job is exclusive to the State?
O- Did I mention “job”? I asked what you do for a living. You do not have to consider theft, unregulated drug sale as a “job”…neither will I nor the State.

— A hospital or medical facility is exclusive to a State?
O- Of a social group, and you know my opinion on this: The State is a social derivate. It’s simply jury-rigged on social tendencies inherent in humans. But you might be special…like an Overman.

— Were I born in a cave, ought I feel gratitude towards the cave?
O- I wonder. Maybe you would not but your parents might…or curse it…depends on your particular biography, or autobiography, which I do not have.

— Again; gratitude is not mandatory.
O- Not mandatory, but in most cases, inevitable…unless you’re a Superman…a special monkey.

— Of course. I’m a self-serving egomaniac and proud of it!
O- You are not special at all then. Just another monkey, not yet a “man”, if those exist. because you are and you live in a world filled with others like yourself- self-serving egomaniacs- the State was created. Because other people suck, natural allies, families at first, then, tribes, then peoples, then nations, emerged to compete against other groups. The State is the latest defense mechanism evolved through war, because at first it was families against one another. Then a few families married their children to create alligeances and thus trumped the pure family (blond-aryan-?.. who knows), which then had to resource to similar tactics and when this balance was struct then different tribes banded together and battled single tribes…you follow me? War/Survival drives the expansion of the idea of “Us”.

— How many people get in trouble for tax evasion in your country, I wonder …?
O- What country are you from, or happen to find yourself at this time?

— Yeah; you’re not given a choice, are you?
O- You are what you are. You don’t choose your parents, your health, aging etc.

— You’re co-opted before your even mentally cogniscent of the consequences.
O- Sucks being a baby.

— So, the only option is secession.
O- Where would you go?

— Indeed. But what is one to do when this “majority” conflicts with ones own imperatives? Petition the local politician-whore?
O- It depends. If your candidate is not elected, you are part of the minority that is submitted by the majority. But you have a chance to change the outcome again in four years. You also can leave the country, to one that suits you better…Maybe Iraq? Egypt?

— In democracy, the mob rules.
O- In war, the largest army usually wins the field. Democracy, in this instance, makes perfect sense.

— It’s been true since the days of Rome. Observe how the influence of the media has directed legislation in the past 2 decades.
O- We need more special individuals like yourself, I guess.

— But their is no people.
O- The majority, like it or not, becomes that “people”. A State is comprised of distinct factions which may not agree with one another…like a “Self” it is an idea made up by others and ourselves to give order to the interaction with Others. Al Qaiada does not distinguish minorities opposed to the war, women nor children…It declared war simply, to their convenience, on America, the PEOPLE of America. I agree that there is no such thing as an actual and unanimous “People”, but in politics, this idea dominates the foreign relations of groups.

— What there is, is the herd who keep their heads down and in everything believe only the opinion that has been given them, there is the State, which consists of a parasitical arrangement between the herd and its sheperds, and there is everyone else; divided, leaderless and uninfluenced.
O- I take you are of this camp? The divided, leaderless, uninfluenced? Divided? I believe it. Leaderless? Sure. Uninfluenced?..That is a delusion.

— What do you think arises from this arrangement, extremely generalised as it is?
O- What? The “parasitical arrangement between the herd and its sheperds”? I don’t know? Hospitals? Education/Universities? Property? Television, Computers?

— The Certainly not the common good.
O- Not the common good eh? Explain to me then the persistence of States? The fact that we find States in every corner of the globe right now? Is it that people generally do not want their “good”, common or otherwise? That rather than good they prefer the bad? Perhaps they are ignorant, oh Socrates-child, of what is the truly good and have, what a tragedy, mistaken the bad with the good!!!? Please tell us more!Every leader, tyrant or otherwise, has to sleep. Why is it so hard to find dead tyrants in their sleep then? They are bad, certainly, not a common good. They are good only to themselves. So explain to me how they survive a night of sleep?

— The State is a group of people who govern and control other (groups of) people.
Simple as.
O- The State is a group of people. Government comes after. Control other groups, thus, not part of the initial group of people which formed the State.

— It is true that one adapts to ones environment as one matures.
And?
You are confusing the State as any form of sociality again, I fear …
O- I hope you read what I wrote above. I could keep on making examples to illustrate the clarity of my argument, but if you have not understood by now then I am happy to co-exist with your opinion…nobody is determined to see it as I do…I wish it was because I am special…

— …and by our personally-determined
O- Give an example.

— past actions, which are limited by any constraining force, such as the State.
O- The State is limiting, bound to constrain, restrain, whatever, but is that all they do? If that was all then States would be a useless yoke. What do you see in a time of peace? Every yahoo liberal yalping at how the State is bad…up until the moment when another, an enemy, out to do much worse to you than this “state” which binds you, creeps near…I hear the worst said about a brother by a sister, or a wife about her husband. But if someone else, an Other, echoes exactly what was just said, now the critics defend the same dutchbag, father, mother, sister, brother, politician, celebrity, State, nation, President etc, etc. The State is a yoke in a time of peace, but in a time of war, the State becomes the means towards everyone survival in the struggle between armies. The nature of warfare dictated the direction of sociability in our species. Was man never to band together to bully a single individual, then no State would ever have evolved. These early hordes were not being “limited” or “constrained” by what happened to be an early version of a State. They were LIBERATED BY IT. By themselves they were powerless. Together they are not omnipotent but not powerless and that is a mighty improvement they are willing to trade for…so long as the deal is good for them. Of course, in families with several brothers, who do you think ended up banding together? And since it was more than just interest that united them- blood, a common up-bringing, the enterprise survived reverses longer…In fact, I am not sure exactly what was more important: calculated gain and the pursuit of selfish interest or irrational bonds of close knit communities. perhaps in a pre-human stage, we were already social.