The State

I know there was a thread about the state earlier, but I decided to make one dealing with the definition and arguments for and against the state.
Questions:
1. How do you define state?
2. What makes the state a state?
3. Do humans need the state to prosper?
4. Is the state moral or immoral?
5. Why should we live under(or not live under) a state?

@admin

Impersonating admin here.

1. A group of people working together

2. People working together under a common identity.

3. No, but the state is superior.

4. The state is moral.

5. Public goods, social welfare, and.... uh........ get back to me on this later.

There are many legitimate definitions for a state. Almost every definition can be connected back to the state being an institution of force. I proved this point to @Zer0 in chat after he showed initial skepticism.

Therefore the state is a ruling class that controls a set population (or some other variation on that)

The state commissions corruption, thievery, killing, rape, kidnapping, and slavery, These things are legal for the state to do, but if anyone else exercises the same activities they get put in a wet dark cell. That is because the state must control liberty, or its own authority and legitimacy will be imposed upon.

I believe the state is objectively immoral and counter-intuitive in relation to almost every goal and belief system. Especially considering the destructive wars and weapons of mass destructions that can be attributed to states.

We should not live under a state in order to reclaim our freedom, independence, pride, spirit, compassion, and humanity.

Bi0Hazard: 1. I'd say it's a body of persons and institution who collectively govern a geographic area
2. Its definition
3. In the long run, yes
4. Moral
5. To help ensure freedom & equality for all

admin: I'd say it's a body of persons and institution who collectively govern a geographic area

After multiple discussions, you finally change your definition. Okay, whatever...

Does the group of people that collectively govern, encompass all the governed?

If so, then how do 100% of people from past, present, and future generations, come to a universal consensus 100% of the time?

If another group of people within a neighborhood form their own state, ignoring the governance of the previous state, then what shall happen to them? ( a small minority in this neighborhood does not recognize the authority of this new governance)

admin: 1. I'd say it's a body of persons and institution who collectively govern a geographic area
A decent definition
3. In the long run, yes
Really?, why do we NEED the state to survive in the long run?
5. To help ensure freedom & equality for all
You don't need a state to ensure freedom, freedom exists with or without the state. The state is actually worse due to limiting liberty(and using force).

Crow: Therefore the state is a ruling class that controls a set population (or some other variation on that)
True, that is part of what the state is.
The state commissions corruption, thievery, killing, rape, kidnapping, and slavery,
How exactly are you defining "commissions"?
Especially considering the destructive wars and weapons of mass destructions that can be attributed to states.
Aren't you more militant yourself? Don't you favor peace through strength?

Bi0Hazard: True, that is part of what the state is.

That is what the state is, but okay.

How exactly are you defining "commissions"?

Brings about the creation of.

Aren't you more militant yourself? Don't you favor peace through strength?

I support militancy. I do not support insensible, ambitious, or inconsequential wars.

The state takes militancy to the next level. It no longer becomes about self defense, but maintaining control.

And the production of nuclear warheads? You have the modern state to thank for that.

Crow: That is what the state is, but okay.
That is what I said, basically the same thing.
The state takes militancy to the next level. It no longer becomes about self defense, but maintaining control.
I guess that is true as well.

Bi0Hazard: You need states to support wider infrastructure and the rule of law. Failing states, churches usually assume the role of a state, or other social institutions.

Positive freedom in the sense of natural liberty could certainly be argued to exist without a state. Negative freedom, ie "freedom from ... X" cannot without a body of laws. Equality likewise needs something like a state.

@Stag

Last time you asked what a state is. A state is a group of people who agree to forfeit rights. I used slightly different language at the time because you hated on social contracts.

The group of people who govern are, in a just state, the governed, but it doesn't logically follow that governing means agreeing to 100% of the rules. It would be possible to organize a state this way but it would be inefficient and not necessary. As you know I support democracy.

It kinda depends on whether such a state could be viable on its own. I'm all for self-determination per the UN charter but a state that isn't independently viable is probably better classed as a protest.

admin: Oh right I forgot you changed your name.

@Crow

admin: You need states to support wider infrastructure and the rule of law.
Infrastructure can be built without the state.
Negative freedom, ie "freedom from ... X" cannot without a body of laws.
Uh, laws don't free you from anything, complete nonsense. The state can't free you from murder.
Equality likewise needs something like a state.
The state is what produces inequality.

Bi0Hazard: Sure, that's why I said wider infrastructure. You could certainly build a dirt road in your backyard with no state, but much stuff requires a broader organizing body.

States don't stop murder but they help prevent it by making people give up their right to do so. If they murder they are no longer justified in doing so, which in turn justifies society in enacting some restorative program like prison or whatever.

So are you saying that people have equal opportunity to access resources without a state?
Of course that doesn't happen WITH a state either, but that is not to say a state can't ensure that if there was political will to.

admin: Last time you asked what a state is. A state is a group of people who agree to forfeit rights.

What of the people that do not agree?

Do they leave the state, as they sit in a state prison?

The group of people who govern are, in a just state, the governed

You are not answering the question.

Are 100% of people from past, present, and future generations agreeing on everything, before it gets made into a law or regulation?

If not, then what is the system for making decisions like laws and regulations ?

but it doesn't logically follow that governing means agreeing to 100% of the rules.

What happens to those who disagree? They get put in their place, right?

It would be possible to organize a state this way but it would be inefficient and not necessary. As you know I support democracy.

What kind of democracy?

Rule by everybody, rule by the majority, or rule by the few?

If you say rule by everybody, then explain how minorities have any power to make decisions within the framework of your system.

It kinda depends on whether such a state could be viable on its own. I'm all for self-determination per the UN charter but a state that isn't independently viable is probably better classed as a protest.

That IS NOT an answer to my question.

I asked what do you do to that neighborhood of people that refuse to recognize the previous state?

I think it is important to remind people that admin is using a definition only he invented, but I like to indulge idiocy sometimes.

admin: You need states to support wider infrastructure





and the rule of law.

Those in the highest office, or associated with the highest office, are above the rule of law.

Positive freedom in the sense of natural liberty could certainly be argued to exist without a state. Negative freedom, ie "freedom from ... X" cannot without a body of laws.

Laws are empty words without violence and coercion.

Looks like we got a hateful anti-human in this thread.

Not going to say who.

Crow: You're talking about states as if they're all the same. They're not. I can only answer for how I ideally would want a state organized, not in any absolutes.

Most nations use the english system of legislature - executive - judiciary. In general I think this system for making laws works fine.

Those who disagree, and act on it, are what you would usually call "criminals" ... the judiciary deals with them as is appropriate under the law.

Personally I favor rule by a majority in an executive sense, with minorities having significant enforced sway in the legislature, within the context of a unicameral multi-party system. Such sway could be in the form of committees and their ability to change laws as they are being passed. I also personally would like to see a cap of 40% legislative control put on all parties under normal circumstances.

What I'd do depends on the independent viability of the potential state. If it is, I let them have their state. If it isn't, I treat it like anyone else who's dissatisfied about something - barring further action I'd probably ignore them.

Crow: Those in the highest office, or associated with the highest office, are above the rule of law.
To that I'd simply say that I'd oppose a state where this is true.

admin: You're talking about states as if they're all the same.

Actually I am asking you questions.

You are ignoring most of them.

Those who disagree, and act on it, are what you would usually call "criminals"

Oh right, and who determines what is a crime? Do they?

How is it a system for all the people, when dissent is met with punishment?

To that I'd simply say that I'd oppose a state where this is true.

You believe in electing people into office to make decisions.

Highest office is above the rule of law. Legislative, executive, and judicial.

Personally I favor rule by a majority in an executive sense, with minorities having significant enforced sway in the legislature

Oh, so a system where minorities are entitled to more power?

How is that equality?


If it isn't, I treat it like anyone else who's dissatisfied about something - barring further action I'd probably ignore them.

And as soon as they physically act against your authoritarian dogma in the confines of their own neighborhood, you throw them in jail.

Am I wrong?

don't be a hateful little anti-human