The State

Crow: Several of them are basically the same question. These I'm answering thematically as I tend to do. Keeps our posts shorter.

Ideally, they help determine what is a crime.

It's a system for all people because all people get to be involved with all decisions. Some things about that system they will like, and some they will not. That's pretty normal.

Pretty sure those representatives too are bound by the law, at least in my ideal world. I'm very proud to live in perhaps the only country in the world to put a sitting executive leader on trial - and convicting them! - of/for breaching the Magna Carta. That's a pretty cool achievement for democracy in my view because it proves nobody is above the law.

Sure, everyone is entitled to power. I wouldn't say minorities have more power in such a system than the majority, but it prevents the majority from screwing over the minority.

You might be wrong, depends on what the judge says. Judges interpret law.

There's no state-human dichotomy. They describe different concepts. That you have to resort to bullying says a lot about the strength of your position.

admin: Several of them are basically the same question.

No, most of them are very specific.

Answer them individually. I asked them for a reason.

Ideally, they help determine what is a crime.

I did not ask what deterred crime.

I asked who decides . Criminals don't get a say sitting in state prison.

It's a system for all people because all people get to be involved with all decisions.

A system in which the participants will get screwed over.

You sold away your life and praise your master. That makes you a house nigger.


Sure, everyone is entitled to power.

Power over themselves, or power over others?

You might be wrong, depends on what the judge says. Judges interpret law.

Then the judge has the power, and the judge is above the rule of law.

That is, if the courts are not already a puppet to politicians, which they always are.

There's no state-human dichotomy. They describe different concepts.

No, it is connected.

This represents a deep seated hatred for yourself and humanity. A lack of pride, a disrespect for your body, and a vein and pitiful existence. All that sustains you is a lie of false character. Without that lie, you are nothing.


That you have to resort to bullying says a lot about the strength of your position.

Apply it generally if you so choose. It is more of an argument than you will care to realize.

Crow: If you want a more detailed series of arguments from me, a forum isn't where you'll get them. This site has a perfectly good debate feature.

I did not answer what deterred crime either. I answered what determines crime. Determining crime = deciding who's a criminal. Read my answers before you judge them.

Petty name-calling is getting you nowhere. If it's an argument there are better ways of explicating it. I'd suggest learning them because I don't want to warn you again for bullying.

Power can be individually OR collectively held. In the case of a state the power is, ideally, collectively held.

That judge is not above the rule of law, they can be put on trial by other judges. That's the point. And they're not always - hence what I just told you about our literal prime minister being convicted of a crime in the most fundamental law there is.

There's no representation to it. I think humanity is great because we invented states and are using them to become more free and equal. You hate progress and have turned that truth into a lie.

Crow: As an aside, in my ideal world, criminals should have the right to vote.

admin: 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.
Doesn't need a state, there is something called cooperation.
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.
"Rights" are just legal entitlements that need a state to enforce. Laws and Prison don't prevent murder(or create a safe society). You don't need a state for a safe society.
So are you saying that people have equal opportunity to access resources without a state?
It can be that way without the state. I find it strange that you say we need a state for equality when the state creates inequality.

Bi0Hazard: At a certain point, large scale cooperation requires consistent rules and management. That's called governance. A government is formed when a society works together to achieve various ends.

If there were no state, there'd be nothing wrong with murder. I suppose if you're that immorally inclined, then that's up to you. State policy does affect murder rates whether you want to accept it or not.

I don't see how it can be that way without a state. People in different areas and of different backgrounds naturally have different resources.

admin: At a certain point, large scale cooperation requires consistent rules and management. That's called governance. A government is formed when a society works together to achieve various ends.
Management is not a state. I am talking about the state, not people cooperating and managers.
If there were no state, there'd be nothing wrong with murder.
False, a moral society can exist without the state.
State policy does affect murder rates whether you want to accept it or not.
Laws and prison don't create a safe society.
I don't see how it can be that way without a state. People in different areas and of different backgrounds naturally have different resources.
Okay?, but that doesn't have to do with what you asked earlier.

Bi0Hazard: In the context of massive infrastructure projects, when you talk about management of such projects, you'll find you have a hard time justifying that from the RBV. Community gardens, sure, those can work. Road that spans from one side of the continent to the other? Unlikely, without an organizing body that has authority over that area.

Well I wouldn't consider that moral. Good luck defending the moral high ground against rape, murder, and everything else that's criminalized. Sure society's not perfectly safe, but state policies help work towards a safer society.

It's the same as what I said earlier. I said states are required to ensure equality. Without a state you don't have equality. You have inequality, especially inequality of opportunity.

This thread is hard.

Admin is being a hateful and soulless anti-human, and using a made-up definition that nobody else uses.

Brother...

admin: In the context of massive infrastructure projects, when you talk about management of such projects, you'll find you have a hard time justifying that from the RBV. Community gardens, sure, those can work. Road that spans from one side of the continent to the other? Unlikely, without an organizing body that has authority over that area.
Again, there is something called cooperation.
Well I wouldn't consider that moral. Good luck defending the moral high ground against rape, murder, and everything else that's criminalized. Sure society's not perfectly safe, but state policies help work towards a safer society.
If they are considered moral by society(which they are), then there can be a moral society. I also believe in objective morality. State's policies are based on force by threat of punishment, society doesn't become safer because of that.
It's the same as what I said earlier. I said states are required to ensure equality. Without a state you don't have equality. You have inequality, especially inequality of opportunity.
I should probably ask, what do you mean by equality? If you mean equality by political rights, then yes, since they don't exist in a stateless society. If you mean equal economic status, then it can depend on the society you live in, but state enforced economic equality requires a state. The state produces social inequality. So, without a state, inequality is removed. Legislated equality needs a state(obviously).

Capitalism drives infrastructure. Infrastructure does not drive capitalism.

Most things are driven by necessity. Everything can be done without the state.

The only argument here is that violence and coercion is a better method of organizing people.

Going to flesh out some of Zer0's well made points

Doesn't need a state, there is something called cooperation.

Obviously the problem here is that admin is defining the state as a group of people who mutually cooperate, which is not a legitimate definition for the state.

The state has rulers, laws, and punishment .

A cooperative anarchic society has leaders, rules, and consequences.

"Rights" are just legal entitlements that need a state to enforce.

Absolutely true.

Which creates dependency on the state as a means of protecting certain liberties, when mankind is perfectly capable of deciding their own fate without the state.

It can be that way without the state. I find it strange that you say we need a state for equality when the state creates inequality.

The state definitely creates inequality.

Any system where people get elected or hired into positions of authority, is not representing an equal society.

Management is not a state. I am talking about the state, not people cooperating and managers.

He cannot defend the popular, technical, or philosophical definitions of a state, so he invented his own definition.

False, a moral society can exist without the state.

And has already existed.

Anarchism came before statism, and is the natural organization of mankind and civilization.

Laws and prison don't create a safe society.

States are directly responsible for 240-300 million human deaths in the 20th century, depending on who you ask.

The state is not our savior. It is our curse.

Bi0Hazard: You're kinda missing my point about cooperation.

If morality were objective, everyone would either obey or disobey the law.

I mean all those (political, economic, social). With specific regard to social equality, you can make a safe bet that without laws against slavery, people take slaves. Hence why slaves used to be a thing.

@Crow

You can't have capitalism without, for example, currency. Or at least, it works very poorly. Money, contracts etc are all infrastructure that drive capitalism.

In general I feel like you see all states like medieval kingdoms and all stateless societies like Flintstone-like caveman utopias. This makes it hard for me to defend my position since you're shifting the goalpost to something I don't support - for example I too agree in leaders over rulers, I just see leaders as being a part of the kind of state I support.

Basic states (tribes often based on family lines) predate the evolution of humans. Only question is how big your village is. That humans naturally want to work with other humans to impose law and good order is hardly in dispute. We're not even the only animals to impose sanctions against "guilty" members of society. Those are all traits we share with our prehistoric ancestors. You're living in a fantasy land if you seriously believe this is just some invention some human had one day "Hey, why don't we start dominating and controlling others!" ... that's not how it happened. Ask any anthropologist.

I don't support - for example I too agree in leaders over rulers, I just see leaders as being a part of the kind of state I support.

You are shifting the goalposts by continually inventing definitions to support your cozy utopian argument.

Your kind is a blemish on the human race.

admin: You're kinda missing my point about cooperation.

I repeat "cooperation" because that is how it is done without the state(instead of force and centralized power).
If morality were objective, everyone would either obey or disobey the law.
Objective morality is not state enforced(the state's own morality is).
I mean all those (political, economic, social). With specific regard to social equality, you can make a safe bet that without laws against slavery, people take slaves. Hence why slaves used to be a thing.
The state makes slaves out of the people it rules over.
And when I say that state enforced laws and prisons don't create a safe society, I don't mean they have zero effect(they may have different effects, even negative ones), I mean that state laws are not what make society safe and are not needed for a safe society.

Bi0Hazard: That's nice because it's also how it's done WITH a state. You don't start or stop cooperating with or without one. States just allow you to mobilize greater populations under shared rules. Even if it's just 2 people cooperating there needs to be a clear set of rules.

If the state's morality is not the same as everyone else's then morality is not objective. Ultimately states are but social constructs.

Saying you're a slave to states is an insult to actual historical slaves.

admin: That's nice because it's also how it's done WITH a state. You don't start or stop cooperating with or without one.

Where are you getting this asinine definition of a state being cooperation?

Oh right, you are pulling it out of your ass.

If the state's morality is not the same as everyone else's then morality is not objective. Ultimately states are but social constructs.

So the state enforces objective morality, in a world where none exists?

States are nothing but a social construct? A social construct is not the same thing as a word, you dingus.

Social constructs always embody something conceptual. The concept here is that humanity should be ruled over by some dominant faction.

Saying you're a slave to states is an insult to actual historical slaves.

No. The concept of control and the reality of forced obedience are the same.

Your advocations are a disgusting attack on your fellow man.

Crow: Well it certainly doesn't define a state, but it does describe it. In a state, people co-operate. For a basic example, legislature makes laws, judiciary interprets law, and executive enforces law. Without all three parts working in tandem law would be a useless institution.

The state doesn't enforce objective morality. It enforces the average person's morality, usually.
States are more than a word. Regardless your attack here doesn't follow. States are a mental construction invented by society. I stand by that statement.

So you're controlling a computer now to read this. I could call you a slave-master but that too, while technically accurate, is clearly using the word in a derogatory context. I've explained it before - you can't be a slave to yourself, in a just government all people form the state, and therefore the slave analogy doesn't work.

admin: Well it certainly doesn't define a state, but it does describe it.

The definitions describe it. That is why we have definitions. What kind of moronic fast one are you trying to pull?

The central theme of just about every definition, is control under an authority within a given area.

Stop with the idiotic bullshit. It fits the level of lameness that you commonly perpetuate.

The state doesn't enforce objective morality. It enforces the average person's morality, usually.

Then the theoretical "average" person has control. That who controls others is a ruler.

It doesn't matter if the slaves consent to their slavery.

States are a mental construction invented by society. I stand by that statement.

What the hell is a mental construction?

You said social construction, and I agree. All social constructs embody a greater concept, and in this case is the formalized and established control over entire populations.

You act as ridiculous as your arguments. Do you take pride in this inhuman trash?

Crow: Definition is a limitation, description is adding detail. Not all states are equally cooperative. All states equally meet the definition of a state.

Theoretical people can't control anything. Try to imagine a theoretical person to make edeb8 be like you want it to and you might be shocked that it doesn't work.

Since we agree on that point it's no use to call it ridiculous, inhuman trash. Though it is ironic.