Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: looner2]
    #4697087 -

:thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697089 -

Quote:
I ask again, then, how is the state morally justified in doing what states do (employ coercion)?


To what States do you refer?

In a Laissez-faire Capitalist (or Minarchist or Libertarian, if you prefer) State the State responds to the initiation of force by retaliating in kind. The State does not initiate force (coerce).

Note that in the absence of a State, individuals and groups voluntarily acting in their own self-defense have the right to retaliate to the initiation of force. The only difference is that in the presence of a State, they authorize the State to do that retaliating on their behalf -- the State as hired bodyguard.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: looner2]
    #4697100 -

looner2 writes:

Quote:
I'd have no desire to justify the state on moral grounds. It is justified on pragmatic grounds...


The moral IS the practical.





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4697125 -

Quote:
I am for limited government, but I am for government. I think we need law and order and infrastructure, and those things aren't free.


Infrastructure aside, I agree with that statement for the moment. The challenge, however, is to provide a moral justification for the state -- that statement does not do so.

Quote:
If you want anarchy, it is alive and well in the world today. Many third world nations lack the ability to police themselves outside of one or two major metropolitian areas. You can have your pick of downtrodden third world nations, and just leave the city and go out to the glorious countryside and stake your claim. You may think your idea has an ideological beauty to it in theory, in practice you would most likely be fucked.


And what if I want anarchy where I currently live? Why am I not morally justified in seceding from the state?

Quote:
And let that farmer fend for himself. Then some of my buddies and I will ride out there one night and string him up and take his daughters. We will also get a free farm. All that work and all that pussy will be all for me. It only takes so much stealing, killing and raping of your wives and daughters to convince people that some sort of authority and law and order is a good idea.



I'm sure you'd risk an shotgun to the face for some farmgirl pussy.

Quote:
Growing up I always wondered why people would live as serfs to Knights and Dukes and Kings. But those people probably got something very valuable, and that is protection. People will sacrifice a lot for safety of themselves and their loved ones. It is all about the trade offs.


Or because the nature of that society left them no recourse. But I'm just conjecturing, as you are -- my knowledge of medieval society is lacking.

Quote:
Cue in that Winston Churchill quote about Democracy being the worst system of government, except all the others that have been tried. The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but in the end you take what you can get in a practical accomidation of reality.


If you want to start a 'Justify the State Pragmatically...' thread, be my guest -- I doubt you'll find much opposition, however. My challenge is for you to justify the state morally.

G1: Stealing is immoral.
G2: The State steals on an enormous scale.
G3 (according to mainstream thought): The State is justified in stealing.

Question: Why?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: looner2]
    #4697127 -

looner2 said:
I'd have no desire to justify the state on moral grounds. It is justified on pragmatic grounds, that is of course if we are looking at the world, as is.


:thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Phred]
    #4697134 -

Phred said:
The moral IS the practical.

Phred


I disagree.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697177 -

Ancalagon said:
And what if I want anarchy where I currently live? Why am I not morally justified in seceding from the state?



With any type of social contract (a group, a society, a nation, etc...) the individual has to make the explicit decision to participate in it. He can at any time choose to not participate in it. You can renounce your citizenship if you do not want to live under a certain government. You would have to leave the nation's territory however.

However, personal morals don't mean shit when you are faced with brute force.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697178 -

In a state of nature, like I said earlier, each man has unlimited freedom to infringe other's rights. When a group of people decide they would rather lay down some of their rights to gain some security. So in this sense, the state is subjectively moral and legitimate even though people have an incomplete sense of freedom, their lives are more secure.

Not only that, but a state can be seen as moral because it advances security and intellectual endeavors. Also productivity and a greater sense of peace can exist.

I know it's a pretty shitty answer, but I figured I would at least try to give you one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Phred]
    #4697179 -

Quote:
In a Laissez-faire Capitalist (or Minarchist or Libertarian, if you prefer) State the State responds to the initiation of force by retaliating in kind. The State does not initiate force (coerce).


This is more or less anarchy anyways. That there happens to be an organization that performs certain functions similar to a modern state in a given geographic territory does not make it identical to a state if they do not initiate force. You have said before that they may secure funding through bequeathments, lotteries, etc. The crucial point is in how they respond to such things as a) rival organizations forming and trying lure away 'customers/subscribers,' b) free-riders c) and the situation in which enough people, for whatever, reason, become dissatisfied enough that it is no longer profitable for them to operate. If for A and B and C they let the market take its course than this is anarchy anyways -- if for A and/or B and/or C they initiate force in some manner than this is modern government and we go back to my original question.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Redstorm]
    #4697187 -

Redstorm said:
I know it's a pretty shitty answer, but I figured I would at least try to give you one.


You bully of humility you...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4697197 -

Well it is a terrible one. It's so hard to answer a question like "Why is X moral?".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697208 -

Wouldn't Georgism solve the problems associated with democracy? No one would have to steal the farmer's rightfully earned income. The farmer decided to stake a claim to land he did not create and that was basically a property owned by no one or everyone as you may see it. By simply taxing the income the unimproved land generates no one is stealing from the farmer. Any income generated by the land could be used to fund common defense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697214 -

Quote:
G1: Stealing is immoral.
G2: The State steals on an enormous scale.
G3 (according to mainstream thought): The State is justified in stealing.


And again we are back to the question not of should we have a minimal State charged with acting as bodyguard, but how to fund that State. Two entirely different questions.

The unproven assumption at the base of G1 through G3 is that in order to perform the duties assigned to it by its customers, the State must steal.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Phred]
    #4697221 -

Also, one must determine that stealing = taxes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4697224 -

Quote:
With any type of social contract (a group, a society, a nation, etc...)


I signed no contract. Nowhere will you find my signature on the Constitution.

Quote:
the individual has to make the explicit decision to participate in it.


If anything this is implicit. Irrelevant as it is a nonsensical argument.

Quote:
You would have to leave the nation's territory however.


The government does not own my property, it only claims jurisdiction over it. If the government acted as landlord on a largescale than we would have a whole different set of issues, but it does not. It lays no claim to all property within its geographical boundaries.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697255 -

Quote:
That there happens to be an organization that performs certain functions similar to a modern state in a given geographic territory does not make it identical to a state if they do not initiate force.


In the absence of competing organizations, they are de facto the State.

Quote:
The crucial point is in how they respond to such things as a) rival organizations forming and trying lure away 'customers/subscribers,'


They simply ignore them.

Quote:
... b) free-riders...


I must admit that over decades of debate on this point I quite seriously fail to see how "free riders" are such a huge sticking point. There will always be a certain irreducible percentage of people who are quite literally unable to pay for these services. That number is so small as to be irrelevant.

Quote:
... c) and the situation in which enough people, for whatever, reason, become dissatisfied enough that it is no longer profitable for them to operate.


In which case they are voted out and people more suitable to the customers are voted in. Again, I fail to see the problem.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697263 -

Ancalagon said:
Randalflagg said:
With any type of social contract (a group, a society, a nation, etc...)


I signed no contract. Nowhere will you find my signature on the Constitution.



Ancalagon said:
Randalflagg said:
the individual has to make the explicit decision to participate in it.


If anything this is implicit. Irrelevant as it is a nonsensical argument.


I disagree. To participate in a social order or a legal framework is not implicit, it is explicit. You have to make the conscious effort to abide by whatever rules that exist.

The concept of citizenship is not one of signing papers. You make a choice to either be a citizen or to stay a citizen. If your current governmental situation is not to your liking then you have the moral right to make a decision to leave and not partake in it.


Ancalagon said:
Randalflagg said:
You would have to leave the nation's territory however.



The government does not own my property, it only claims jurisdiction over it. If the government acted as landlord on a largescale than we would have a whole different set of issues, but it does not. It lays no claim to all property within its geographical boundaries.


But it does lay claim to the behavior of men and it has the power to enforce its rules. As I said, you have the right to morally object to a state (or anything for that matter) as a free-thinking individual. You have the right to leave or attempt to change it. But, morals don't mean shit when faced with something with power.

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/22/05 11:23 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4697274 -

Quote:
morals don't mean shit when faced with something with power.


:thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Redstorm]
    #4697278 -

Quote:
In a state of nature, like I said earlier, each man has unlimited freedom to infringe other's rights. When a group of people decide they would rather lay down some of their rights to gain some security. So in this sense, the state is subjectively moral and legitimate even though people have an incomplete sense of freedom, their lives are more secure.


What you just described is, in my view, a morally justified state apparatus. That is, a group of people voluntarily coming together and forming such an organization based on agreed upon terms. Where the state loses its moral justification, now, would be if this voluntarily agreed to group tries to force someone in their geographic territory that did not consent to abide by it. Furthermore, this contract should not extend to the posterity of those who originally agreed to it.

Quote:
Not only that, but a state can be seen as moral because it advances security and intellectual endeavors. Also productivity and a greater sense of peace can exist.


A museum might advance intellectual endeavors -- is it justified in initiating force?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: newuser1492]
    #4697298 -

cb9fl said:
Wouldn't Georgism solve the problems associated with democracy? No one would have to steal the farmer's rightfully earned income. The farmer decided to stake a claim to land he did not create and that was basically a property owned by no one or everyone as you may see it. By simply taxing the income the unimproved land generates no one is stealing from the farmer. Any income generated by the land could be used to fund common defense.


You might be interested to know that Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy was both a Georgist and and anarchist. He apparently felt that once a Georgist system was in place to solve the land problem, society would become more egalitarian and prosperous, and less dependent upon the state for their needs, which would help facilitate the whithering away of the state.

It's also interesting to note that Georgism isn't the only ideology to address the land problem(it just happens to be the most practical). American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker named the land monopoly as one of four state-maintained monopolies that oppressed the working man(the other three being tariffs, patents, and the money monopoly). But rather than Georgism, he advocated a system known as mutualism, in which ownership of land and capital would be based only on current use and occupation. This meant that one could not charge absentee rents, as the land became up for grabs as soon as it was abandoned. It also meant that any workers who worked in a factory were owners of that factory, since they were the current users of that property.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 trendalM 17,952 133 09/28/09 01:34 PM
by Phred
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 dee_N_ae 14,667 131 09/19/02 03:08 PM
by francisco
* the state - govern and be governed - ends justify coercion Malachi 1,043 15 01/08/04 06:52 PM
by Phred
* Washington State Election Fiasco Divided_Sky 608 1 12/04/04 10:21 PM
by Ancalagon
* We Need the State? Otherwise, Something Bad Might Happen!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Evolving 8,005 141 05/24/04 02:12 AM
by shamantra
* USA - the world's rogue state
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 Zen Peddler 9,122 130 11/01/02 10:37 AM
by hongomon
* The State of Our Unions
( 1 2 3 all )		 wingnutx 2,448 42 10/10/03 03:14 AM
by hongomon
* Patriot Act 2, more plans for a police state Ellis Dee 1,911 16 02/26/03 07:19 PM
by ClosetCase

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,313 topic views. 1 members, 77 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.