- #36
pi-r8
- 138
- 30
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.
In summary, the purpose of a state institution within a society is to protect individual rights. This includes having an army to defend against force, courts to interpret and enforce laws, and a government to oversee these functions. It is not necessary for a government to redistribute wealth or cater to industry and lobby groups. In a primitive society, these functions may be fulfilled through individual trade and protection, but as societies become more complex, a centralized institution is needed to ensure the protection of individual rights.
- #37
The Smoking Man
- 67
- 0
Oh please ... slander me ... slander me!pi-r8 said:
- #38
The Smoking Man
- 67
- 0
The problem is, you are arguing ideology (Fantasy) over reality.pi-r8 said:
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.)
- #39
Jonny_trigonometry
- 452
- 0
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.
- #40
Jonny_trigonometry
- 452
- 0
pi-r8 said:
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.
- #41
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 1,830
- 5
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.
- #42
devil-fire
loseyourname said:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #43
The Smoking Man
- 67
- 0
Become a government, you mean?Jonny_trigonometry said:
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.
- #44
Smurf
- 443
- 3
what do you mean?The Smoking Man said:
- #45
Anttech
- 233
- 0
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
- #46
The Smoking Man
- 67
- 0
Anarchy is associated with chaos.Smurf said:
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.
- #47
Burnsys
- 66
- 0
Smasherman said:
Thanks, i write it myself, but i think someone should have said it before.
- #48
Burnsys
- 66
- 0
pi-r8 said:
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...
Right actualy a total lack of government intervention is needed to increase the gap. ever heard about "Free Markets" ?
- #49
Smurf
- 443
- 3
Why won't the people allow it? exactly?The Smoking Man said:
- #50
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,528
- 10,884
4 pages in and no one has posted this?:
- #51
Burnsys
- 66
- 0
russ_watters said:
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!
- #52
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,220
- 24
The 'function of the state' is what the state should do, not what it does.
- #53
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,528
- 10,884
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.
- #54
Jonny_trigonometry
- 452
- 0
Gokul43201 said:
If you're talkin about what the state should do, then you're talking about morals. You first make a normative claim like
russ_waters said:
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.
- #55
Skyhunter
I think his argument is that the State is not performing those functions.russ_watters said: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.
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]
Last edited by a moderator:
- #56
The Smoking Man
- 67
- 0
It's not in their nature.Smurf said:
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'.
- #57
Smurf
- 443
- 3
Are you going to make an argument or just ask questions?
- #58
The Smoking Man
- 67
- 0
The best argument is that ther has not ever been a period in history when Anarchy ruled anywhere on earth.Smurf said:
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.
- #59
Art
Out of interest Smurf I have a few questions. I'd like to know your opinions on the following. Do you support;Smurf said:
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?
- #60
- #61
jimmie
- 163
- 0
I too believe that is what the state SHOULD be.
So, do you believe there should be more than one state?
- #62
Skyhunter
Not if it is to be truly sovereign. Sovereignty of State is an illusion, as long as there is another State to challenge it's sovereignty.jimmie said:I too believe that is what the state SHOULD be.
So, do you believe there should be more than one state?
- #63
jimmie
- 163
- 0
That was my point: should there be ONLY one state?
- #64
devil-fire
russ_watters said:
this is the nuts and bolts of a democracy but i think it leaves out any kind of dictatorship.
- #65
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,528
- 10,884
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that we should include the functions of a dictatorship? The way I see it, the functions of the state should be laid out first, then the system of government designed around those functions to carry them out to the best extent possible.devil-fire said:
- #66
The Smoking Man
- 67
- 0
Sure ... then we'll only have 'civil' wars.jimmie said:That was my point: should there be ONLY one state?
- #67
The Smoking Man
- 67
- 0
Hmmm ... "the system of government designed around those functions to carry them out to the best extent possible."russ_watters said:
You mean until the population or the government figure out how to circumvent the 'plan'?
Even the best plan put forward so far has allowed for malnourished children and abuse of power... The USA.
When you get the largest corporations and highest earners getting refunds while the middle class 'foots the bill', you can't say it is working as intended.
I mean ... in some cases it is blatantly obvious ... Halliburton gets done for criminal overbilling the government on the one hand and then gets a tax refund from the other!?
In China, everybody has figured out how to beat the system.
Until Klaatu arrives and stands behind any government that is put into power threatening to blow their heads off if he sees anything suspicious, this is going to be 'business as usual' on planet earth.
- #68
Smasherman
- 30
- 0
loseyourname said:
That's my older brother's opinion of government, too (US government, anyway). It's one of those metaphors (simile in this case) that seems nearly perfect.
- #69
Smasherman
- 30
- 0
Burnsys said:Thanks, i write it myself, but i think someone should have said it before.
Awesome. I'll put your screen name and the PF url on my list.
- #70
X-43D
- 32
- 0
The state is a monopoly of coercion in a given territory. The necessity for distinct organs of administration, repression and assistance has its cause in the maintenance of class society. The state is the defender of the dominant class which is increasingly integrated into it.
Many political philosophies that are opposed to the existence of a government (such as anarchism and to a lesser extent Marxism, as well as others), emphasize the historical roots of governments - the fact that governments, along with private property, originated from the authority of warlords and despots who took, by force land as their own (and began exercising authority over the people living on that land). Thus, it is sometimes argued that governments exist to enforce the will of the strong and oppress the weak, maintaining and protecting the privilege of a ruling class. It states that the government emerged when all the people of an area were brought under the authority of one person or group.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html
Many political philosophies that are opposed to the existence of a government (such as anarchism and to a lesser extent Marxism, as well as others), emphasize the historical roots of governments - the fact that governments, along with private property, originated from the authority of warlords and despots who took, by force land as their own (and began exercising authority over the people living on that land). Thus, it is sometimes argued that governments exist to enforce the will of the strong and oppress the weak, maintaining and protecting the privilege of a ruling class. It states that the government emerged when all the people of an area were brought under the authority of one person or group.
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html
Last edited by a moderator: