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


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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Silversoul]
    #4699487 -

Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
Randalflagg said:
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.


Inferring may be an educated guess, but it is still a guess. It is not proof. You don't know the politics of every group that ever existed in every part of the world. There may have been some groups that had a nice egalitarian way of doing things and there may have been other groups that had one big strong guy who would whack you over the head with his club when you did something he didn't like.

Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
Randalflagg said:
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. Social order does not require coercion to be enforced.


Huh? The threat of being ostracized from the group is coercion.

Quote:
Paradigm said:
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.


...or being wacked on the head with a club.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4699652 -

Quote:
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.


This thread's purpose was, for those who care about such a thing, to debate the moral justification for the state. I've already said countless times that my view is different pragmatically. The point of this thread is to view the state through a moral lens. You've stated your view, that you don't believe there is any moral justification for the state but that such a thing doesn't matter. Cool. Your work is done here, no more tangents. Thanks.


--------------------
?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: Alex213]
    #4699663 -

Alex213 said:
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.


Why is reading the initial post in the thread such a problem? I'm looking for MORAL justifications for the state. Saying that if there was no state business would run rampant does not MORALLY justify the state. Again, use this as a reference:

If it is immoral for one individual or a group of individuals to steal from another individual or group of individuals, what is it about the state that precludes it from this tenet of morality.


--------------------
?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]
    #4699710 -

Ancalagon said:
This thread's purpose was, for those who care about such a thing


"We don't need no stinkin' purpose" - Sartre

Ancalagon said:
Your work is done here, no more tangents. Thanks.


Tangents are what this forum is all about.

If my posts piss you off so much, how about you try to initiate force against me?  I dare you.

:bluemoon:  :razz:


:smirk:

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/23/05 09:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4699816 -

Ok, no more tangents. I promise.

You ask, "Is there a moral justification for the state?". That immediately brings up an important question; what "morality" are you basing the question upon? There may be an "absolute truth" that is indisputably correct, but this is difficult to prove. Phred claims to have found it by basing his ideas of morality upon Man's desire to survive. Christians claim to have found it by following the teachings of the Bible. The simple fact is that the idea of morality varies from person to person.

If a collectivist Leftist were to ask your question he would undoubtedly concur that a state is morally justifiable because the common good is more important than an individual's good. If a nationalist Rightist were to ask your question he would undoubtedly concur that a state is justifiable because of his inherent desire for a stable, cohesive, and powerful nation.

Morality is subjective, which means that the answers to your question will be subjective and they will vary.

From looking at your posts, I get an inkling that your morality is sympathetic with libertarian and anarcho-capitalist leanings. Based on that morality, I doubt that you could find much justification for a state. But, this is a determination that you need to come to on your own.

Edited by RandalFlagg (09/23/05 10:50 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4699849 -

Ancalagon,

I think the closest thing you'll get to a legitimate response is what Phred posted.

As many libertarians have shrieked over the years (to universal gasps of confusion and disbelief), taxation is theft. If theft is immoral, then yes, taxation is immoral. Because your morals are built on a foundation of complete freedom, there's no way to morally justify violating complete freedom. Likewise, if my moral system is based upon a continuous consumption of turkey sandwiches, there's no way to morally justify not continuously eating turkey sandwiches..... So what? Is this important to you?


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4699870 -

Morals are a subjective trap. There is no justification for morals except to protect the weak from the daring. So in my mind, the only moral justification for the state is to protect the weak from the daring.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4699892 -

If it is immoral for one individual or a group of individuals to steal from another individual or group of individuals, what is it about the state that precludes it from this tenet of morality.

Oh dear, I didn't realise this was another piss and moan about taxation.

I'll leave you to it.

Suffice to say if anyone but a handful of people thought taxation was theft a government would be voted in that offered to abolish it. For many wise reasons that isn't going to happen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4700052 -

RandalFlagg said:
Inferring may be an educated guess, but it is still a guess. It is not proof. You don't know the politics of every group that ever existed in every part of the world. There may have been some groups that had a nice egalitarian way of doing things and there may have been other groups that had one big strong guy who would whack you over the head with his club when you did something he didn't like.


There may have been, but there is no reason to think that this was commonplace, as it is not the case with any similar contemporary tribes, nor is there fossil evidence of massive bone injuries from such clubbings.

Quote:
Huh? The threat of being ostracized from the group is coercion.


Wrong. Coercion involves the use of force. Ostracism simply involves refusing to associate with someone. That is not coercion(if it was, I would say that many a female has coerced me in my life).

Quote:
...or being wacked on the head with a club.


Again, there is no evidence to indicate that this was the case.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4700076 -

Ancalagon said:
If it is immoral for one individual or a group of individuals to steal from another individual or group of individuals, what is it about the state that precludes it from this tenet of morality.


The state is defined as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Theft is a form of force. Therefore, its use of theft can be justified as legitimate, while others cannot.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Silversoul]
    #4700132 -

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.

To be honest you wouldn't need to go to Japan. England has fruit sellers and fresh food sellers in crowded areas too.

I imagine this comes down to the fact that most street theives are more interested in mobile phones/wallets as opposed to filling their arms with a buck-fifty worth of apples.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Justify the State.. [Re: Silversoul]
    #4700178 -

Paradigm said:
Coercion involves the use of force. Ostracism simply involves refusing to associate with someone. That is not coercion(if it was, I would say that many a female has coerced me in my life).



Well, I say we stop jacking Ancalagon's thread. But that little paragraph you wrote still made me laugh.

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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

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 17,903 133 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 14,658 131 09/19/02 01:08 PM
by francisco
* the state - govern and be governed - ends justify coercion Malachi 1,041 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 9,108 130 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. 5 members, 2 guests and 143 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 0.027 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 17 queries.