Hello apaosha:
— We disagree on the very definition of the word, omar.
O- Alright. At least you gave me a starting point. Now we may get somewhere. Wikipedia suits you, then let’s use it as a normative vehicle. Instead of “state” search “State”. Here is what I got:
A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. These may be nation states or sub-national states. A state usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the exercise of coercive violence for the people of the society in that territory, though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it. In sociology, the state is normally identified with these institutions: in Max Weber’s influential definition, it is that organization that has a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory,” which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.
Another important definition to search is “polity”, which is the modifier of the “association” (Political= from “polity”; association). It says that:"Today it is usually a general term that refers to the political organization of a group. It is often used to describe a loosely organized society such as a tribe or community, but can mean any political group including a government or empire, corporation or academy. It is also used in the phrase ecclesiastical polity as a synonym of church government.
I do not use “political” because I believe the root of it lies in the greek idea of the “polis”, but if I did, I found an interesting definition in Google:“Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state”. Note that for the person who proposed the definition geverment is not equal to state. Now, please think about what has been said so far by me. I have agreed with Carleas in that the State is everybody. This “everybody” is not “humanity” although for the greeks this may just have been what they imagined… Everybody is those persons within the group, the US in relation to a THEM. I have also said that a state, or the theoretical idea of a state, a group identity obviously, precedes the goverment that ostensibly pretends to govern the polity, the group, the “US” (as in US/THEM relation), the imagined group. The state is not dependednt on it’s goverment but the goverment is dependent on it’s state. The group could produce and support one or another goverment. The goverment can be changed, realigned without the loss of a state-identity. For this reason you have artificial borders, which define a State, circling around different sub-states. The “State” of Iraq contains the sub-states of the kurds, sunnis and shias. Note that these sub-states are defined by religion as well as ethnicity because “State” is not a mere secular matter. There is no limit to the manner used to define a state. You wrong me if you think that my idea of state is “everybody who can vote”, when I have said prior that the state “agent” can be determined by his race, religion or something else. Vote was a democratic example, but I will address this later. Now let me answer your points:
— Omar, what is the extent of your definition of the State?
O- “Everybody”. The State, ideally, has no exceptions. Everyone is a “brother” or a “comrade”…ideally, it does not even need a ruler. The existence of a “THEM” makes states develop goverments. I hate to use the Bible as an example but do consider that the Hebrews “asked” for a king with their sense of US versus THEM.
— Any “agroupation”?
O- Any. But be careful. I am not saying that for example you, Carleas and myself form a state, but there is no reason why such a state could never occur. I am sure that if the world began persecuting freespirits, philosophers, thinkers, which is how some here define themselves, many in this forum would feel a sense of belonging. Have I not stressed how important the OTHER is in creating group identity?
— Does this not include the species as a collective?
O- There is no “species”, nor a “collective”. Marx failed to recognize that group identity, states, are dependent on the bordering of outside groups. If we found tomorrow that human beings were not alone in the universe and that there is a Galactic empire, sci-fi style, then the creation of a “human” state would soon follow.
— Is “bravery” not to know the danger, yet defy it anyway?
O- But what is “danger”? Certain death? And what is “defy”? To do everything leading to the “danger”? If that means death then No- that is suicide. Now there is a danger in giving up your freedoms and exchange them for rights not secured by yourself but by the State govt. There is a danger for example that you might become a victim of it’s device. And yet, most people defy this danger and remain affiliated to a state and it’s govt. But isn’t that bravery?
— Wisdom is to you assimilation in the herd, for the sake of survival?
O- “Wisdom” is kinda like your “to know”. You make a the sake of survival a bad deed. Yet you’re alive and quite possibly, since you live in the northern hemisphere, part of a “herd”.
— Where would you draw the line? Tell me that, and you’ll know the extent of your pride.
O- Tell me where you live and we will discover if you have any reason to have any pride.
— You describe vanity. There is a distinction.
Pride is self-respect. Vanity is the cosy feeling one receives from the admiring glances of others; your idea of pride.
O- Wiki says:“Pride is an emotion which refers to a strong sense of self-respect, a refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of oneself or a person, group, nation or object that one identifies with, or to think of one’s self as being better than anyone else.”
As we see here, pride is not without a bit of vanity.
— This is not based upon any sociality I might engage in; my sense of self-worth is not derived from others, but from my own capability of achieving the goals that I have set myself, including those relating to sociality.
O- You speak of “self”. What is within this concept? It is not an easy concept to agree upon, but I am going to give you some ideas, not all, of what I think about the “Self”. One is not born with a fully developed self or idea of a self. One is not a blank slate either, but whatever we come into this life with is finished by our biography. Parents, teachers and peers play a role in that development of a sense of self. In my opinion self-worth is not independent of others, as parents, for example play a major role in the development of self esteem and set the norms which, when internalized, become the person’s ideas of his own capabilities and standards by which to measure said capabilities. In most cases what makes one proud is what would’ve made one’s parents (or whomever played a role model for said person) proud. This of course does not mean that we are aware of just whose influence determines our own, nor that this influence is total. As I have said, we are not blank slates.
— I wish you would stop attempting to broadcast the idea that the State is inherent in all social interactions.
O- All you have to do is prove me wrong.
— When I was three, terrorising my local neighbourhood, or when I was one, sucking my mothers tit, I was not participating in federal affairs, I can assure you …
O- But you were party of a social entity: family. Your family was a part, most likely, in a larger social entity: State/Nation.
— I don’t understand you.
O- Is it important to you in this matter of what is the State? If so, then I’ll explain. If not then let’s move on.
— I need to be able to do these things in order to make choices? The State is directly responsible for all these things?
O- What I mean is that teachers play an important role, so much so, that if someone tells you their biography, you could hardly be surprised about their choices.
— And does not the transitoriness of these ideologies, these fads, not subvert in you any reverence towards them that you might possess?
O- I have no reverence for ideologies. But that does not mean that I am stateless.
— There’s no Truth in this thread …
O- At least until we agree on something…
— Where is the extent of the Omar-Carleas-State? We really need to nail this down, fellas …
O- I don’t know Carleas that well, so I could not tell you. There’s got to be some degree of familiarity in order for the idea of a group, and our belonging to it, to emerge. If I knew Carleas very well, if he was a Friend, I may very well identified with him. But that is not the case right now.
— “Should”? Where is this “should”?
I was under the impression that we were all born into and inevitably labeled as property of the State upon conception - according to you.
O- Part of is different from Property of. A white man in the 18th century was a part of the State. A black man was property of said white man. “Should”, meaning theoretically speaking although sometimes praxis does not follow theory, as when the Father of the Nation wrote down that all men are created equal but still kept their slaves. I said “sample” questions. I should have added that these were sample answers and that there were many more ways because there are many more types of states. In a racially defined state, the right to vote, for an example, does not become an “ought” but an “is”. Same with a sexist state.
— Tell me, are we consulted within the womb as to our opinion on taxation? Hmm? Children are not permitted to vote either; are they outside the State, too?
O- Not necessarly. If you’re a white child in the 18th century US then your inability to vote was provisional. At a certain age you could, hence you were part of the State. A black child could not vote, as a child or as a man, hence he was not part of the state.
— I thought it was only voters. Your changing your definitions again, omar!
The economy is the State?
O- For someone who disreagards definitions as much as you, now you seem a proper academic begging exactitude of meaning each step of the way. In a democratic state then this is true but the idea of State is not just the democratic state.
— Then how is the Omar-Carleas-State orgainised and directed without the government? Is it just a - very large group of people, completely unaffiliated with eachother?
O- Again, I don’t even know Carleas. Is he an american citizen? Do we have common interest? Common struggles? Common enemies? But I can use your sarcasm here. Suppose I was a King…say King of Spain. Carleas, let’s say, was King of France, and you were King of Germany. Now, suppose that you were threatening me, Spain, and were more powerful than either me or France individually. Now France has an interest that I, Spain, do not fall into your empire. We have a common cause. One of the ways to ally ourselves is through a treaty, but an older tradition is to bind ourselves through blood, thus we marry off our daughters and sons. This is one of the ways in which the State follows the example of family.
Try and guess where …
