News What is the function of the state?

[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...

 

[Burnsys]

4 pages in and no one has posted this?:

The topic is: " What is the function of the state? " and not " What should be the function of the state? "


Edit: had you check the new editing module here in PF? it's great!

 

[Gokul43201]

The 'function of the state' is what the state should do, not what it does.

 

[russ_watters]

So... what if it is doing what it should do? I'm not being coy here, I honestly can't see why you don't consider that relevant.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

The 'function of the state' is what the state should do, not what it does.

If you're talkin about what the state should do, then you're talking about morals. You first make a normative claim like

...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...

And provide reasons for all of them. They all sound good, but when you get really deep into it, they start to conflict with each other, and you realize it can't fully be done. For example, how do you ensure common defense and secure the blessings of liberty when you have to issue a draft? There are a lot of compromises that have to be made every once and a while to those standards, but overall those standards can be met with a high percent yield.

If you're talkin about what the state is doing, then you don't have to make a normative claim, but simply report on the facts. There is no place for morals and justice when you speak of what the state is doing, because it's simply a report. If you want to start exploring why the state is "doing something wrong" then you must refer to your own sense of morals and justice to do so.

So if you want to speak of what the function is in a way that simply reports facts, then you can't judge it. If you want to speak of the function of the state in a way that it ought to be, then you can judge it and suggest improvements that help achieve your ideas of morals and justice. All I'm saying is that this is semantics, and we've been talking about both the whole time. I'm willing to bet that we all want to talk about both rather than one or the other.

 

[Skyhunter]

So... what if it is doing what it should do? I'm not being coy here, I honestly can't see why you don't consider that relevant.

I think his argument is that the State is not performing those functions.

Those are the stated purposes of our establishment of a State, but not necessarily the States realized function.

[edit] However, I don't see how that is irrelevant to the topic either. [/edit]

 

[The Smoking Man]

Why won't the people allow it? exactly?

It's not in their nature.

What do you know of personality theory in business?

What do you know of S&M?

Do you think there is any way that people like Bill Gates can be convinced to not be as he is? Napoleon? Hitler? Moussolini?

What is peer pressure? What is 'bullying'?

How do you psycologically groom all of humanity to live in peace in an anarchic society given the vast difference in mentality. The first act of violence or desire will bring about the catalyst for the establishment of a world order consisting of rules and eventually laws.

It's "Human Nature".

The Human Animal, becaue of thought and reason, is the only animal to defy the concept of 'survival of the fittest' because of our intellect. Thought is our blessing and our curse.

It can be best summed up in the statement ... 'No man is an Island'.

 

[Smurf]

Are you going to make an argument or just ask questions?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Are you going to make an argument or just ask questions?

The best argument is that ther has not ever been a period in history when Anarchy ruled anywhere on earth.

Tell you what ... you point out all the successful incidents or how you forsee it happening.

I'll sit over here and get ready to poke holes.

 

[Art]

Are you going to make an argument or just ask questions?

Out of interest Smurf I have a few questions. I'd like to know your opinions on the following. Do you support;

a) the idea of having a free national health service?
b) free / subsidised education?
c) welfare support for the unemployed?
d) welfare support for the sick and old?
e) public transport?

 

[Smurf]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=804187#post804187