News What is the function of the state?

[Smurf]

What is the purpose of a state institution within a society?

 

[Pengwuino]

The definition of a state institution practically has a textbook definition. If anyone here has a definition that does not match the idea that a state institution's function is to serve the public using public monies, please raise your hands.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Deleted

What of the enforcement of the public morals?

What about defining the public morals?

The Welfare state?

Who makes the laws and what they entail?

You think the state is responsible just for spending the public money?

(Asside: the Moderators are HOT today. Nice work!)

 

[Evo]

Ok, let's try this again. This time without insults. Pengwuino, your outburst was uncalled for, please show some respect.

 

[Smurf]

Awww I didn't get to see what he said.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Awww I didn't get to see what he said.

Now Now ... back to the topic.

Clean slate.

What of the points I brought up?

 

[The Smoking Man]

How about we advance it a bit further and rhuminate on what the state should NOT be responsible for at the same time?

We have the concept of church and state but ... on other threads we have explored issues like religion in public life and overt displays ... Islamic headscarves in schools for instance.

 

[Smurf]

Well I tend to look at the state as having a specific reason for existence. Anything not included in this specific purpose would be assumed to be in the "NOT responsible for" category.

 

[Gokul43201]

What is the purpose of a state institution within a society?

To protect individual rights.

 

[Evo]

(Asside: the Moderators are HOT today. Nice work!)

Sticks a GOOBF card into TSM's computer. (I'm easy)

 

[pi-r8]

I agree with Goku. The only proper purpose of a state institution- I assume you mean a government?- is to protect individual rights.

Imagine that you're living in a primitive society of hunters and gatherers. There's no government at all. You spend your days looking for food and shelter, with maybe the occasional break to get it on with a hot neanderthal chick.

Maybe it turns out that you prefer the food that grows somewhere else. That's ok, you can get it by trading the people who live there your food for their food, and then you have two kinds of grubs. No government is necessary for this.

Maybe it turns out that you're much better at finding/building shelter than you are at finding food. That's ok, you can arrange to build/find shelter for people, who will then give you food. No government is necessary.

Maybe you're good at something completely new (science), that no other person does. As long as someone else wants it, you can trade that skill in order to get what you want and need. Again, no government necessary.

There's just one problem. A rather mean neanderthal named Og has decided he doesn't like you. Maybe he wants to bash your brains in, maybe he wants to rape you, maybe he wants you to give him all your food. In other words, he wants to violate your right to life, liberty, or property. You need these things to live. What can you do?

You can't trade with him, because he'll just take whatever he wants. You can't tell him that it's immoral, he won't listen. He won't listen to anything you say, actually. Your only option, if you want to live, is to use force. You'll have to defend yourself by fighting him.

But there's another problem. Og is a lot bigger than you, and he has a big club. If you try to fight him by yourself, he'll crush you. So what do you do? You find 5 really big guys, and pay them to protect you. You're not interested in a fair fight, you're interested in making sure that you are not harmed. You want your force to be vastly superior to the force that's trying to harm you.

What if another person has the same idea as you? If you both have your own private armies, it would be extremely easy for a conflict to erupt between you. If you want to avoid this, you'll have to agree to just have one, overwhelming army in the area. An army that can crush anyone that tries to challenge it, and an army with clearly defined rules so that it doesn't become oppressive. Those are the laws of your society, and since some of them might be complicated, you'll need people to interpret those laws and settle disputes over them- the courts.

That's it. That's all you need. You don't need it to redistribute wealth, you just need it to protect you against force. Because when it comes right down to it, the only power the government really has is the power to use force against people. It's the exact same power that Og had, only more so.

 

[The Smoking Man]

To protect individual rights.

Ahahahaha ...

MAYbe in the USA.

For centuries, the world over this has NEVER been the case.

And even in America at the moment, regardless of what is stated about 'of', 'by' and 'for' the people, you'll find it caters to industry and lobby groups.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I agree with Goku. The only proper purpose of a state institution- I assume you mean a government?- is to protect individual rights.

Imagine that you're living in a primitive society of hunters and gatherers. There's no government at all. You spend your days looking for food and shelter, with maybe the occasional break to get it on with a hot neanderthal chick.

Maybe it turns out that you prefer the food that grows somewhere else. That's ok, you can get it by trading the people who live there your food for their food, and then you have two kinds of grubs. No government is necessary for this.

Okay ... so the guy who builds the houses decides to leave ... what then?

So the women decide they don't like gathering and want to try hunting.

So the women don't particularly like being 'used'.

So you have elders who have knowledge of when where and how to hunt and become the repositry of lore.

As soon as societies develop, government follows.

Even dogs have an Alpha male.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sticks a GOOBF card into TSM's computer. (I'm easy)

Please don't leave me lines like that.

I am trying to control myself and the temptation is just too great.

:insert tongue biting smiley here:

 

[pi-r8]

Okay ... so the guy who builds the houses decides to leave ... what then?

Somebody else does the job. What's the problem?

So the women decide they don't like gathering and want to try hunting.

If they're good at it, great. If not, they won't be able to make a living and they'll have to go back to gathering.

So the women don't particularly like being 'used'.

When were they being 'used' in my society? I didn't even mention women!

So you have elders who have knowledge of when where and how to hunt and become the repositry of lore.

Great. In our society, this is called an encyclopedia, and it's completely unrelated to the government.

 

[SOS2008]

Ahahahaha ...
MAYbe in the USA.
For centuries, the world over this has NEVER been the case.
And even in America at the moment, regardless of what is stated about 'of', 'by' and 'for' the people, you'll find it caters to industry and lobby groups.

Idealistically or realistically? I think Gokul is just providing thoughts on the ideal. Knowing Smurf...

A nation-state is a specific form of state, which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation, and derives its legitimacy from that function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_State

versus

Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of social hierarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist

?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Somebody else does the job. What's the problem?
If they're good at it, great. If not, they won't be able to make a living and they'll have to go back to gathering.
When were they being 'used' in my society? I didn't even mention women!
Great. In our society, this is called an encyclopedia, and it's completely unrelated to the government.

Oh, please ... why do you judge the word 'government' on the last 50 years of 'the American experience'.

Do you think this is all indicative of the history of man and all of the world at the present time?

The question is the 'State' not the 'States' as in the 'USA'.

Nature reflects government and it isn't pretty.

When there are no laws, the house builder is enslaved and the women are raped... and no the people don't go back to 'gathering' when they are unsuccessful ... most times they starve.

What you just condemned was one of the oldest forms of government ... the tribal council.

 

[Burnsys]

The role of almost all goverments is to protect the rich from the poor.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The role of almost all goverments is to protect the rich from the poor.

Never has a greater truth been spoken. Bravo.

 

[pi-r8]

Oh, please ... why do you judge the word 'government' on the last 50 years of 'the American experience'.
Do you think this is all indicative of the history of man and all of the world at the present time?The question is the 'State' not the 'States' as in the 'USA'.

What? When did I judge government by the modern US government? When did I ever mention any real government? It's true that the US government is closer to the ideal than any other, but it still has a lot of problems.

Nature reflects government and it isn't pretty.
When there are no laws, the house builder is enslaved and the women are raped... and no the people don't go back to 'gathering' when they are unsuccessful ... most times they starve.

I agree. I agree about the necessety of laws, that's why my government had them. I do not agree that people will simply give up and starve if they are unsuccessful at an endeavor. Personally, I will try my hardest to live well until the day I die, no matter how many times I fail. If someone else would rather give up and starve to death, I feel no sympathy.

What you just condemned was one of the oldest forms of government ... the tribal council.

? I never condemmed old people sharing their knowledge, if that's what you mean. I just pointed out that it's not really a form of government.

 

[pi-r8]

The role of almost all goverments is to protect the rich from the poor.

That's odd. How come the rich pay taxes to provide the poor with food, school, and healthcare? How come most of the m oney for the military that protects EVERYONE comes from the rich? It would seem that, contrary to what you assert, it's the rich who are getting the shaft from the government.

I suppose you think that the rich need a government to stop the poor from taking their property, right? While this is true, it is also true that the government stops the rich from taking the property of the other rich, and the poor from taking the property of the other poor. And yet no one cries foul when the rich are robbed yearly to pay for things that go toward benefiting the poor.

It's the rich who are least protected by government, these days.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

and no the people don't go back to 'gathering' when they are unsuccessful ... most times they starve.

I don't get this. Why would they not go back to gathering? Have they some how lost the ability? Are their minds somehow far too dull to even follow their survival instinct and do what they are successful at to keep themselves alive?

I'm imagining that there is some reason why you see it that way in our current society and that you are stating it metaphorically perhaps?

 

[Burnsys]

That's odd. How come the rich pay taxes to provide the poor with food, school, and healthcare?

You can call that the bare minimun the poor need to keep the poor working for the rich at slave wage (Compared to the profit the rich make out of their workers)

How come most of the m oney for the military that protects EVERYONE comes from the rich?

Actualy the rich own the military and make profit from it, if not just look at Boeing, lookheed, NG...

I suppose you think that the rich need a government to stop the poor from taking their property, right?

True

While this is true, it is also true that the government stops the rich from taking the property of the other rich,and the poor from taking the property of the other poor

Kind of true

It's the rich who are least protected by government, these days

Then why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all say that the state is a means to take us out of the state of nature. They argue that reason alone tells us that surrendering some of our rights to the state provides us with a a better way of life. It's a way of keeping our reason with us at all times, because sometimes we don't listen to it and expend our energy in a detrimental way to others in the community (do something stupid).

If you study the iterated prisoner's dilema in an ecological environment with a couple different personalities (one that always defects, one that always cooperates, one that is random, and one that treats others as others treat them "tit for tat") which occupy equal portions of a fixed population, you'll find that the personality that defects all the time gains much at the beginning, but loses everything in the end. The always cooperate personality always loses to the defector, but they do very well with each other rather than the defectors who don't get along with each other well at all. The random one is a hybrid of the two and preforms accordingly, but the tit for tat starts by losing a little, but after it gains knowledge about it's environment, it doesn't lose against the defectors, although it doesn't win either, and it cooperates with the cooperators, and it acts randomly against the random ones, so in the end, the entire population ends up being tit for tat personalities.

Now think of the "tragedy of the commons", where there is a fixed amount of land, a fixed amount of people, and a fixed amount of goats to graze the land and sustain the people. Suppose that scientists deduce that the land can sustain everyone if they all let their goats graze the land for only 2 hours a day. A defector would think, "I'm going to let my goat feed for 3 hours, just to ensure that I'll get my portion", and another person might see that other person and justify doing it themself by saying "he does it and nobody stops him, so why shouldn't I do it?", and soon enough, everyone is letting their goats graze all day, then after a while all the grass is gone, and all the goats die, and hence all the people die. If the people kept their reason at all times, then they would survive, but they didn't and they all died. That is why a state is agreed upon by everyone by their reason. It's a way to make sure that everyone keeps their reason, and doesn't go and do something stupid, and if they do then it's tit for tat via the states power (given by the agreement by all the people to surrender some of their rights for the state to use in good judgement).

 

[pi-r8]

Then why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

Because most people who are rich are rich for a reason- they're good at making money. Likewise, most people who are poor are bad at making money. No government intervention is necessary for the gap between these two groups to increase.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Because most people who are rich are rich for a reason- they're good at making money. Likewise, most people who are poor are bad at making money. No government intervention is necessary for the gap between these two groups to increase.

I disagree. Have you heard of lobbyists? payoffs? what about sneaky wording in proposed bills? Or even direct declarations like "and all congressman will receive a pay raise of 10%..."? or free dinners, vacations, resources, use of a company jet, or free publicity offered by the rich? All these things provide leverage by the rich to have their say in law making, and running the country. As long as they can distract a law maker of their conscience by a round of golf, then the rich can expliot the poor more easily.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't get this. Why would they not go back to gathering? Have they some how lost the ability? Are their minds somehow far too dull to even follow their survival instinct and do what they are successful at to keep themselves alive?
I'm imagining that there is some reason why you see it that way in our current society and that you are stating it metaphorically perhaps?

Go back to the post before where he uses the observation of the primitive man scenario (metaphore) where hunter gatherer is mentioned.

Believe me, in that scenario, you died.

Look at China for an example of how it happens in a society. They abandoned traditional roles in preference of 'assigned roles' in agriculture and industry and a few million died.

Wanna tell me I made a mistake again?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I disagree. Have you heard of lobbyists? payoffs? what about sneaky wording in proposed bills? Or even direct declarations like "and all congressman will receive a pay raise of 10%..."? or free dinners, vacations, resources, use of a company jet, or free publicity offered by the rich? All these things provide leverage by the rich to have their say in law making, and running the country. As long as they can distract a law maker of their conscience by a round of golf, then the rich can expliot the poor more easily.

Or, As Orwell said "Some Pigs are more equal than others."

 

[The Smoking Man]

Because most people who are rich are rich for a reason- they're good at making money. Likewise, most people who are poor are bad at making money. No government intervention is necessary for the gap between these two groups to increase.

Tell me, was GWB 'good' at making money?

 

[Smasherman]

The role of almost all goverments is to protect the rich from the poor.

Awesome statement. Is that original, or did you get it from someone else? I want to record it and I want to write whose statement that is.

 

[The Smoking Man]

That's odd. How come the rich pay taxes to provide the poor with food, school, and healthcare? How come most of the m oney for the military that protects EVERYONE comes from the rich? It would seem that, contrary to what you assert, it's the rich who are getting the shaft from the government.
I suppose you think that the rich need a government to stop the poor from taking their property, right? While this is true, it is also true that the government stops the rich from taking the property of the other rich, and the poor from taking the property of the other poor. And yet no one cries foul when the rich are robbed yearly to pay for things that go toward benefiting the poor.
It's the rich who are least protected by government, these days.

An educated worker is a good worker ... but ... make it hard to get a REALLY good education amd MOST OF ALL deny him access into the very best schools ... wouldn't want him rubbing elbows.

Health Care? That's a joke, right?

Money and the military ... who makes the weapons? Who rebuilds countries? Who got charged with criminally overbilling the US government?

My My ... I feel like I am arguing the point with a new grad or at least a first year.

Tell me ... all these things the lower classes have ... It wouldn't be based on CREDIT would it? ... Who owns the banks?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

The role of almost all goverments is to protect the rich from the poor.

now that's a machiavellian statement if I've ever seen one. Your approach is perfectly scientific and investigates the facts, and concludes accordingly... devoid of any notion of morals or justice

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

That's odd. How come the rich pay taxes to provide the poor with food, school, and healthcare? How come most of the m oney for the military that protects EVERYONE comes from the rich? It would seem that, contrary to what you assert, it's the rich who are getting the shaft from the government.
I suppose you think that the rich need a government to stop the poor from taking their property, right? While this is true, it is also true that the government stops the rich from taking the property of the other rich, and the poor from taking the property of the other poor. And yet no one cries foul when the rich are robbed yearly to pay for things that go toward benefiting the poor.
It's the rich who are least protected by government, these days.

I disagree. Most of the really rich don't even pay taxes, there are plenty of ways to write them off when you're rich. Of all the rich people in the country, I bet less than a quarter of them pay taxes. There are so many loopholes in laws it's not funny. You may have been led to believe that the rich pay the most in taxes, well not the super rich, they don't pay crap. Look at John Ashcroft who received 800,000 from the IRS 2 years ago, he's already really rich, but why did he not have to pay taxes, but in fact receive taxes? Loopholes!

 

[pi-r8]

Well, let's put aside the issue of who benefits/is harmed the most by current government. Would you all agree that no government should make one person richer at the expense of another?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I disagree. Most of the really rich don't even pay taxes, there are plenty of ways to write them off when you're rich. Of all the rich people in the country, I bet less than a quarter of them pay taxes. There are so many loopholes in laws it's not funny. You may have been led to believe that the rich pay the most in taxes, well not the super rich, they don't pay crap. Look at John Ashcroft who received 800,000 from the IRS 2 years ago, he's already really rich, but why did he not have to pay taxes, but in fact receive taxes? Loopholes!

When Cheney took over Halliburton, they went from paying 79 million in taxes to receiving a 300 million refund due to off shore accounting.

 

[pi-r8]

Gah! So much demonizing of the rich! I can't take it! I hope that if I become rich people don't slander me so much.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Gah! So much demonizing of the rich! I can't take it! I hope that if I become rich people don't slander me so much.

Oh please ... slander me ... slander me!

 

[The Smoking Man]

Well, let's put aside the issue of who benefits/is harmed the most by current government. Would you all agree that no government should make one person richer at the expense of another?

The problem is, you are arguing ideology (Fantasy) over reality.

All the great thinkers used pure logic to define the ideal govenment failing to take into account the fact that PEOPLE are the things that make up any society.

Basic fact ... people are greedy and will not be restrained by logic or laws.

The art of good business is to bend laws until just before the snap and if you do have to break it ... do your profits exceed the penalties. (Whereupon, it simply becomes the cost of doing business.)

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

There are many good rich people too, I suppose I should make a clarification. The CEO that desires to provide the most jobs and the best pay for the employees and offer the best care of the employees through daycare, healthcare (which should be national, but anyway), dental, the works, and chooses to run the company for the benefit of the employees is a good CEO. The CEO that runs the company for the benifit of the company is a bad CEO. i.e. he tries to make the compay the biggest, best, strongest, and most expansive and profitable thing ever. That CEO would cut pay in order to build a new building for the betterment of the company, and hence is not primerily concerned about people but rather the prestige of being in charge and owning a powerful and influential company. Which CEO would spend money on charity, and community programs and things? There are good people and bad people in all economic levels. Put it this way, the rich lifestyle is the perfect envrionment for people primarily concerned with themselves rather than others. Thats why most of the rich are corrupt, because it's the lifestyle that they want, not the ability to help others. A rich person focused on the betterment of society will probably not desire to live a rich lifestyle (fancy cars, the most expensive suits, cigars, a private yacht, their own golf course, and some unique item that they prize like the most expensive pen known to man (just something rediculous to spend money on)). they would be more conservative with their money, and not spend so much on themrself.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Well, let's put aside the issue of who benefits/is harmed the most by current government. Would you all agree that no government should make one person richer at the expense of another?

well, ya. At first, but only a defector of the society can become super rich by exploiting others, and if they kill off everyone else by depriving them of resources, then nobody is there to sustain them, and they die (over a sufficiently long period of time). Refer to my previous post about the iterated prisoners delima in an ecological environment, and "the tragedy of the commons".

on second thought... It's not the rich that win in the state of nature, but the political. because in order to survive without governemnt, you must convince others that you should all band together to exploit other people and become rich together. You'll need an army, eventually, to fight off all the others that want to kill you and provide justice. To become rich in the state of nature requires more than you may think. Since everyone has the right to kill, you are likely to be killed if you start stealing other people's labor. I would conclude that the only way to be the richest possible is to walk hand and hand with the most politically powerful people and become rich together.

 

[loseyourname]

I've still never seen a better definition of the 'state' than 'the entity which has a monopoly on the initiation of force within a bounded geographical area.' (Was it Weber that said that?) That's pretty much it. The hope of the people is that its own government's use of force (laws, taxation, and such) never gets as bad as would the imposition of another state (something like colonialism). Government is a lot like the Italian mafia: the local mob boss protects you from other mob bosses in exchange for a small fee. If you refuse to pay, not only does the protection cease, but he's probably going to attack you himself. They've got a really nice racket going if you ask me.

 

[devil-fire]

I've still never seen a better definition of the 'state' than 'the entity which has a monopoly on the initiation of force within a bounded geographical area.' (Was it Weber that said that?) That's pretty much it. The hope of the people is that its own government's use of force (laws, taxation, and such) never gets as bad as would the imposition of another state (something like colonialism). Government is a lot like the Italian mafia: the local mob boss protects you from other mob bosses in exchange for a small fee. If you refuse to pay, not only does the protection cease, but he's probably going to attack you himself. They've got a really nice racket going if you ask me.

this applies to domestic law quite well but it misses out a few elements.

maybe "'the entity which has a monopoly on the initiation of physical force originating from within a bounded geographical area." would be more accurate?

as to make the distinction from the original quote in regards to 1- the use of economic force from the private sector (any non-government entity) and 2- the use of an occupational army on foreign boundaries. of the forces a government have at its disposal, i think they all originate from physical force, also note that cultural forces for example are not monopolized by governments.

 

[The Smoking Man]

on second thought... It's not the rich that win in the state of nature, but the political. because in order to survive without governemnt, you must convince others that you should all band together to exploit other people and become rich together. You'll need an army, eventually, to fight off all the others that want to kill you and provide justice. To become rich in the state of nature requires more than you may think. Since everyone has the right to kill, you are likely to be killed if you start stealing other people's labor. I would conclude that the only way to be the richest possible is to walk hand and hand with the most politically powerful people and become rich together.

Become a government, you mean?

You basically said that to live without government, you must band together with a group of individuals who assemble a standing army, provide for justice (which implies laws) ... you must convince others ... you mean like a party campaign?

And how do you 'pay' the soldiers you look to for protection? Does each individual contribute to a fund according to their earnings? ... You mean like 'taxation'?

There really is no such thing as anarchy since most anarchists form into 'gangs' of some sort and impose their own morality on their members. They govern them.

 

[Smurf]

There really is no such thing as anarchy since most anarchists form into 'gangs' of some sort and impose their own morality on their members. They govern them.

what do you mean?

 

[Anttech]

what do you mean?

He means how can one be an anarchist when one is in a "Gang" of other Anarchist who form there own type of goverment.. Its an oximoron

 

[The Smoking Man]

what do you mean?

Anarchy is associated with chaos.

Chaos is a vacuum.

When there is a vacuum, power asserts itself and from the confusion, factions form. The factions form gangs which evolve into parties which form governments.

Has there EVER been anarchy on earth?

As I said before ... Even dogs follow an Alpha male. Gorillas follow the silverback. Fish swim in schools. Children form cliques. etc.

It is the very reason that communism can't exist outside the pages of the manifesto and Hobes and Locke fail AND anarchy fails.

PEOPLE won't allow it.

 

[Burnsys]

Awesome statement. Is that original, or did you get it from someone else? I want to record it and I want to write whose statement that is.

Thanks, i write it myself, but i think someone should have said it before.

 

[Burnsys]

Because most people who are rich are rich for a reason- they're good at making money. Likewise, most people who are poor are bad at making money. No government intervention is necessary for the gap between these two groups to increase.

Sorry, are the rich good at Making money? or at TAKING money from the society?

Can we say all workers who work for a salary (Computer programers, Construction Workers, Police Officers, Clerks, etc) are poor becouse they are bad at making money?? there is a lot (when i mean a lot i mean 90%+) of the people who main profesion is not make money but to do something usefull like working for example...

No government intervention is necessary for the gap between these two groups to increase.

Right actualy a total lack of government intervention is needed to increase the gap. ever heard about "Free Markets" ?

 

[Smurf]

Anarchy is associated with chaos.
Chaos is a vacuum.
When there is a vacuum, power asserts itself and from the confusion, factions form. The factions form gangs which evolve into parties which form governments.
Has there EVER been anarchy on earth?
As I said before ... Even dogs follow an Alpha male. Gorillas follow the silverback. Fish swim in schools. Children form cliques. etc.
It is the very reason that communism can't exist outside the pages of the manifesto and Hobes and Locke fail AND anarchy fails.
PEOPLE won't allow it.

Why won't the people allow it? exactly?

 

[russ_watters]

4 pages in and no one has posted this?:

...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...