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

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697301 -

Quote:
Ancalagon said:
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.



I wish it was like that in this world, but it isn't.

I think your focus is too ego-centric and individualistic. It is like you are asking the world and your fellow Man, "Why do you have the right to limit my freedom and my actions?". This world and your fellow humans do not care about justifications, your concerns, or your morality very much. You can desire all of the freedom in the world, but in this world we have governments that watch over chunks of territory and enforce their rules. You don't have the power to fight them or to resist the will of many other people. Your desires for freedom are outweighed by your fellow man and the institutions that they have caused to arise.

Power beats personal morality any day.

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/22/05 08:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Phred]
    #4697382 -

Quote:
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.


The way I define state is such that it is not a state if it does not in some way tax its citizens (whether through tariffs, direct taxes, inflation, whatever), or prevent competition, or prevent free-riding, or any combination of those in addition to some other stuff. Without exhibiting those qualities it is simply a creature of the market and thus immaterial to this discussion (which, after all, I did start! !).


--------------------
?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]
    #4697410 -

Ancalagon said:
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.




You agree that we need things that aren't free. Things that are critical to the function of civil society, and these things cost money. Then you say that paying for them in any collective way is stealing.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697445 -

Then we clearly have different definitions of "the State".

My definition of "the State" is that institution which runs the military and the justice system. Note that:

-- it is not necessary to impose taxes in order to run a military and a justice system

-- it is possible to run a military and a justice system without contributions from every single individual served by the State

-- it is possible to run a military and a justice system even if some of the people with access to those services choose instead to settle for private arbitration in some cases or to take up arms themselves against invaders.

Since we are not talking about the same thing, I will bow out of this discussion.




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Phred]
    #4697468 -

Phred said:
My definition of "the State" is that institution which runs the military and the justice system.



That is the ideal libertarian state, but it is not an accurate representation of the states that exist in this world today.

Phred said:
it is not necessary to impose taxes in order to run a military and a justice system



Huh? Soldiers don't usually fight for free. Judges don't work for free. Lawyers sure as fuck don't work for free (I know this from firsthand experience).

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/22/05 09:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4697545 -

Quote:
The concept of citizenship is not one of signing papers.


You alluded to a social 'contract.' The nature of a contract is that it is mutually agreed upon. To sign something is generally taken to mean you agree to it. I never signed any document nor agreed, either explicity or implicitly, to live under the government I currently live under.

Quote:
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.


I know this is how it is. My challenge in this thread is, again, for someone to prove HOW THIS IS MORALLY JUSTIFIED. I realize that my only recourse right now if I don't like my government is to try to change it or move. What I don't realize is how my government is morally justified in doing whatever it is I don't like to me by force.

Quote:
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.


Sigh. Please guys, try to comprehend what is being said here. I know that it if I don't pay my taxes and the IRS agent comes to my door, he won't give a fuck if I tell him 'Well, sir, truth be told I don't think there's a moral justification for the kind of thing you do.' What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is whether or not such a justification for ANY state exists.


--------------------
?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: JesusChrist]
    #4697557 -

RandalFlagg said:
The modern state as we know it may not be natural, but the inclination for Man to create hierarchy, status, and an order is. Anytime these things are instituted in a group, that constitutes a government to me.


But there wasn't any hierarchy among humans for 99% of the time we've been on this Earth. Status, maybe. But that was based purely on respect for elders and their wisdom. There was no ruling authority among the nomadic people that lived back then. And you need to understand the difference between government and state. Government can exist without a state, but not vice-versa. These primitive nomads governed themselves and made group decisions, but there was no state to coerce them.

Quote:
I don't base my opinions on what Man naturally inclines toward on some flowery egalitarian model of the "noble savage". I look at the world today and what I see is tribalism, hierarchy, authority, and systematic bureacracy in people's behavior.


My intention was not to idealize this primitive lifestyle. Only to point out that hierarchy is no more natural than cities.

Ancalagon said:
Just want to throw out that there are ways of punishing people for actions without coercion -- a voluntary economic boycot for instance.


In the primitive societies I speak of, probably the worst punishment one could recieve was banishment. People do not tend to live that long all by themselves.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4697648 -

Ancalagon said:
You alluded to a social 'contract.' The nature of a contract is that it is mutually agreed upon. To sign something is generally taken to mean you agree to it. I never signed any document nor agreed, either explicity or implicitly, to live under the government I currently live under.


I know that you never "agreed" to the domain of the current government like you would by signing a contract. When you are born into a country you are automatically considered a citizen. Because of this you are automatically expected to follow the rules of the government and of the society. Children cannot choose their parents or their state.

However, once you become old enough to be your own person, then I believe that every person has an obligation to examine what they want and what they believe in. It is at this point that a person chooses where to put themselves. They have every right to decide what ideals they want to live by. If they decide to remain a citizen of a certain country, then they make an explicit (there's that word again) choice to do so.


Ancalagon said:
Sigh. Please guys, try to comprehend what is being said here.

My challenge in this thread is, again, for someone to prove HOW THIS IS MORALLY JUSTIFIED.

What I don't realize is how my government is morally justified in doing whatever it is I don't like to me by force.



I'll answer your question...."The State's" existence is not morally justified in any way that I can see. This creation does however seem to be a natural proclivity of Mankind. Men create and destroy them on a regular basis.

Being an existentialist, I don't think that there is a discernible morality in this reality. In our existence, morality lies with the individual. Therefore, I find it practically impossible to establish moral justification for much of anything except for a person's freedom of choice and action (and even that is iffy).

I don't understand why you are so obsessed with these unknowable justifications for something. Focus on reality and not esoteric ideas on morality or natural rights. Don't end up like me and spend all day chasing your own philosophical tail.

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/22/05 10:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Silversoul]
    #4697714 -

Paradigm said:
RandalFlagg said:
The modern state as we know it may not be natural, but the inclination for Man to create hierarchy, status, and an order is. Anytime these things are instituted in a group, that constitutes a government to me.


But there wasn't any hierarchy among humans for 99% of the time we've been on this Earth. Status, maybe. But that was based purely on respect for elders and their wisdom. There was no ruling authority among the nomadic people that lived back then.


Status is a hierarchy.

I think you are shortchanging the word "hierarchy". Hierarchy can mean a lot of things. It can mean that there exists a pyramid-like system of power (like modern day governments) or it can mean that there exists certain people who are respected and looked up to. Your example of tribal elders is a perfect example of hierarchy; their opinions were respected and probably guided many of the decisions and actions of the tribe. That is hierarchy. That is power.


Paradigm said:
These primitive nomads governed themselves and made group decisions, but there was no state to coerce them.



I think it is very presumptuous of you to claim to know so much about human history and human nature throughout the ages when the most informed scientists and researchers barely have a clue.

There may have been no state to coerce these "nomads" of yours, but there was a social order. This social order was derived from approval or disapproval of their tribal members. You seem to view a "state" and a "social order" as very different. I don't view them as different at all. The individual is still intentionally subjugating part of his will to a group in order to receive some benefits.

And, the nomad example is pointless because we do not find ourselves in that world anymore. Our world is heavily populated and members of our race are usually stationary and somewhat advanced.

Paradigm said:
And you need to understand the difference between government and state. Government can exist without a state, but not vice-versa.



So you view "government" as any type of organization that attempts to control or protect a group of people? And you view a "state" as a government that watches over and regulates a large group of people who happen to be sitting on a piece of land?

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/22/05 10:01 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Silversoul]
    #4697866 -

By the way, stop looking at my girl's boobs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4697987 -

I can't help it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Redstorm]
    #4698012 -

Redstorm said:
I can't help it.


Well, I was talking to Paradigm...but you're looking at her boobs too?!?! You sick perverts.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4698033 -

It's not my fault that her tits cover at least 10% of your message space.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Redstorm]
    #4698051 -

Redstorm said:
It's not my fault that her tits cover at least 10% of your message space.


I'm gonna justify my foot up your ass...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4698180 -

RandalFlagg said:
You make a choice to either be a citizen or to stay a citizen.


This depends entirely upon the legal framework of the state you happened to be born into or the state that has taken over the geographic location in which you reside.

Quote:
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.


Many governments will not allow you to leave. Even if you leave the U.S., the government can still legally try to force you to pay taxes. History has also shown that people cannot freely secede from the U.S. government even when the government is in violation of it's charter. You also seem to be ignoring the geographic expansion by conquest into areas that were previously under the jurisdiction of another state or stateless.

The idea of a 'social contract' is so much malarkey. There is no contract where it can only be enforced unilaterally by one of the parties to the contract, but not the other. There is no contract where one party can arbitrarily change the rules of said 'contract.' There is no valid contract where one of the parties has not fully and explicitly consented to the terms of the contract.

The U.S. government has shown by it's actions and it's very existence in it's current state that it has broken the explicit contract (The Constitution and it's amendments) which originally was the source of it's creation.

What kind of contract is it where one party of the contract has the sole authority to determine whether the other party is in violation and to punish the other party, but the second party has no recourse except to flee (if allowed by the first party) when the first party breaks the terms of the contract? If in fact there is a contract between the individual citizens and the state, the individual citizens, either alone or in concert with others should be allowed to terminate the current contract and form a new contract with another state entity or establish a new state with a new contract when the first 'contract' with the original state has been breached by the first state. This is obviously not the case. There is no social contract between the individual and the government, this is merely a play on words used to establish legitimacy of the state in the minds of those who have not sufficiently questioned the reasons for fealty to the state.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4698221 -

Quote:
Status is a hierarchy.

I think you are shortchanging the word "hierarchy". Hierarchy can mean a lot of things. It can mean that there exists a pyramid-like system of power (like modern day governments) or it can mean that there exists certain people who are respected and looked up to. Your example of tribal elders is a perfect example of hierarchy; their opinions were respected and probably guided many of the decisions and actions of the tribe. That is hierarchy. That is power.


I think you are stretching the word hierarchy to be too broad. Hierarchy involves one person or group having power over another. Prestige is not like that. Prestige is gained by people having great respect for someone. A prestigious person does not have the power to give orders. Only advice.

Quote:
I think it is very presumptuous of you to claim to know so much about human history and human nature throughout the ages when the most informed scientists and researchers barely have a clue.


Anthropologists today infer things about early hunter-gatherer society from the ones that still exist today. I am using the same methods. There are still tribes which live much the way that early man is thought to have lived.

Quote:
There may have been no state to coerce these "nomads" of yours, but there was a social order. This social order was derived from approval or disapproval of their tribal members. You seem to view a "state" and a "social order" as very different. I don't view them as different at all. The individual is still intentionally subjugating part of his will to a group in order to receive some benefits.


If you do not see a difference between state and social order, then you can't possibly begin to understand anarchism. Try going to Japan sometime. You'll see food vendors with fresh fruit and other items out in the open in crowded subway stations where anyone could steal them without getting caught, but no one does. Do they achieve this through strict law enforcement by the state? No. It is their social order, in which honor is everything, which protects them from theft. Social order does not require coercion to be enforced.

Quote:
And, the nomad example is pointless because we do not find ourselves in that world anymore. Our world is heavily populated and members of our race are usually stationary and somewhat advanced.


Which is why I mentioned that I have my doubts as to the feasibility of anarchy in modern society. I still think there might be a possibility for it, however.

Quote:
So you view "government" as any type of organization that attempts to control or protect a group of people? And you view a "state" as a government that watches over and regulates a large group of people who happen to be sitting on a piece of land?


Government is any decision-making body of people. My school has a student government, but it sure as hell isn't a state. You are partially right about a state having to do with a fixed area of land, but the most defining aspect of a state is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In these tribal societies, force is rarely if ever used against its members. Punishment usually comes in the form of social stigmatization and berating by the group.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4698697 -

Here's one pretty good justification of the government from my recent post on big business. Without the state introducing measures contrary to market forces the planet cooks.

Sounds like a pretty strong justification...

These three technologies alone could cut millions of tonnes of emissions without causing any decline in our quality of life. Like hundreds of others, they are ready to be deployed immediately and almost universally. But they won't be widely used until the government acts; it remains cheaper for companies to install the old technologies. And the government won't act, because to do so would be "an unwarranted intervention in the market".


This was not, I now discover, the first time that the corporations have demanded regulation. In January the chairman of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, insisted that "governments in developed countries need to introduce taxes, regulations or plans ... to increase the cost of emitting carbon dioxide". He listed the technologies required to replace fossil fuels, and remarked that "none of this is going to happen if the market is left to itself". In August the heads of United Utilities, British Gas, Scottish Power and the National Grid joined Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace in calling for "tougher regulations for the built environment".

So much for the perpetual demand of the thinktanks to "get government off the backs of business". Any firm that wants to develop the new technologies wants tough new rules. It is regulation that creates the market.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Silversoul]
    #4698713 -

Try going to Japan sometime.

Just try and avoid bumping into the Yakuza... :wink:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Alex213]
    #4698855 -

Alex213 said:
Without the state introducing measures contrary to market forces the planet cooks.


Um, actually the Earth enters warming and cooling cycles on its own. You could argue that we are accelerating the process, which could be cause for alarm. But the planet "cooks" anyway.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4699433 -

Prosgeopax said:
RandalFlagg said:
You make a choice to either be a citizen or to stay a citizen.


This depends entirely upon the legal framework of the state you happened to be born into or the state that has taken over the geographic location in which you reside.

Many governments will not allow you to leave.


Granted, some dictatorships don't like to let people leave. But, I wasn't talking about dictatorships. I was talking about the average Western democracy.

Prosgeopax said:
RandalFlagg said:
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.


Even if you leave the U.S., the government can still legally try to force you to pay taxes. History has also shown that people cannot freely secede from the U.S. government even when the government is in violation of it's charter. You also seem to be ignoring the geographic expansion by conquest into areas that were previously under the jurisdiction of another state or stateless.



You are ignoring my main point. You can do whatever you want to do, but that does not mean that you will succeed or be free from consequences. I can choose to not pay my taxes, to murder somebody, or to leave the territory of my country and renounce my citizenship. Does that mean I will succeed? No. Does that mean I will escape all punishment or consequences? No. Is this whole situation fair? Fuck no.

Prosgeopax said:
The idea of a 'social contract' is so much malarkey. There is no contract where it can only be enforced unilaterally by one of the parties to the contract, but not the other. There is no contract where one party can arbitrarily change the rules of said 'contract.'



In this modern world, we are all to some extent bound to the whims of our fellow man and their institutions. This is unfortunate, but it is true and unavoidable.

Prosgeopax said:
If in fact there is a contract between the individual citizens and the state, the individual citizens, either alone or in concert with others should be allowed to terminate the current contract and form a new contract with another state entity or establish a new state with a new contract when the first 'contract' with the original state has been breached by the first state. This is obviously not the case. There is no social contract between the individual and the government, this is merely a play on words used to establish legitimacy of the state in the minds of those who have not sufficiently questioned the reasons for fealty to the state.


Individuals break the contract with the government and society all of the time (i.e. they commit crimes).

Do I like the concept or the existence of an expansive and powerful state? Hell no. I agree with you completely when you say the U.S. federal government has broken the rules of the Constitution. I of course would like to see things change. Can you or I change things when faced with such a behemoth of a state? No. But, we choose to stay. What is the point of complaining about the state's actions or its moral justification for existence? It exists. It is more powerful than any of us. It is still supported by the vast majority of people. End of story.

If you find things so disagreeable then you have the ability to try to leave (like Phred did).

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/23/05 07:40 AM)

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

Unfolding Nature Shop: 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 17,950 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 dee_N_ae 14,666 131 09/19/02 01:08 PM
by francisco
* the state - govern and be governed - ends justify coercion Malachi 1,042 15 01/08/04 04:52 PM
by Phred
* Washington State Election Fiasco Divided_Sky 608 1 12/04/04 08:21 PM
by Ancalagon
* We Need the State? Otherwise, Something Bad Might Happen!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Evolving 8,000 141 05/24/04 12:12 AM
by shamantra
* USA - the world's rogue state
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 Zen Peddler 9,117 130 11/01/02 08:37 AM
by hongomon
* The State of Our Unions
( 1 2 3 all )		 wingnutx 2,448 42 10/10/03 01:14 AM
by hongomon
* Patriot Act 2, more plans for a police state Ellis Dee 1,911 16 02/26/03 05:19 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. 2 members, 1 guests and 9 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 0.03 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 18 queries.