The Fifty First State

This actually is one of the main reasons to abolish the state. If you really think that is true, giving them control over others is the height of folly..
The problem is nothing can be perfect. We can abolish the current institutions, but new ones would just rise in their place. The way to reduce personal corruption in the government is to through elected legislatures. The United States is an example of a highly corrupt elected legislature, though at the same time, our system for all it's flaws is less corrupt then an autocracy would be.
Government <> state. Of course, people need government. No one is claiming otherwise.
All governments are essentially states. This is my opinion. I can explain details if you want, but I don't have the time right at the moment.
 
The problem is nothing can be perfect. We can abolish the current institutions, but new ones would just rise in their place.
Indeed they would. This is precisely the point - to allow the rise of institutions based on cooperation and voluntarism, not the jackboot.

The way to reduce personal corruption in the government is to through elected legislatures. The United States is an example of a highly corrupt elected legislature, though at the same time, our system for all it's flaws is less corrupt then an autocracy would be.
Legislatures are an example of corruption in action - especially the American one which is run by K-Street. While I am not proposing autocracy, you are wrong. Hong Kong has been much less corrupt, both under British and Chinese rule. Unfortunately, they are getting more and more democratic.

All governments are essentially states. This is my opinion. I can explain details if you want, but I don't have the time right at the moment.
The defining characteristic of the state is the jackboot. Not all governments work this way. It is not true, for example of a church or a Kwanis club.
 
Not really, I think they just react badly to the childish, overtly insulting way in which you use it. Perhaps there's a little resentment on the part of some more enthusiastic partisans about being lumped in with the hate foe, but they're a minority, and I've found that most statists are pretty okay with the term as long as it's made clear in the course of the discussion that the term is being used in a strictly technical sense.
The difference between you and me is this: I hate the state. I despise it for everything it destroys, especially all the human lives. The millions of people in prisons, the hundreds of millions murdered. Perhaps even more I despise it for the routine attacks on the vast majority of the human race under its thumb. Half or more of their hard-earned money stolen. Standing hours in line to a stupid piece of paper. Having to travel hundreds of miles to get more said bits of paper. Living constantly in danger of getting everything you have, and worked for, destroyed in minutes.

One thing I don't understand is how ordinary everyday statists live their lives under this constant threat and simply shrug it off. Then there are people who claim to be anarchists and do the exact friggin same thing. Just how dumb is that?
 
Nonsense. Statist is a term with a meaning: it refers to those who believe in the necessity of the state. This term is in turn defined as that institution which has a monopoly on the use of force within a particular geographic area. I've always found it interesting to see how statists object to the use of a simple descriptive term. It seems to imply that they are somehow ashamed of their views. Doesn't it?
The objection is that you always describe the totalitarian variety.
 
The difference between you and me is this: I hate the state. I despise it for everything it destroys, especially all the human lives. The millions of people in prisons, the hundreds of millions murdered. Perhaps even more I despise it for the routine attacks on the vast majority of the human race under its thumb. Half or more of their hard-earned money stolen. Standing hours in line to a stupid piece of paper. Having to travel hundreds of miles to get more said bits of paper. Living constantly in danger of getting everything you have, and worked for, destroyed in minutes.

One thing I don't understand is how ordinary everyday statists live their lives under this constant threat and simply shrug it off. Then there are people who claim to be anarchists and do the exact friggin same thing. Just how dumb is that?

And just how dumb is it to deny there is no better alternative available? What exactly do you propose - a real anarchy? Go play DayZ for a few hours to get an idea how that would work. Or have a trip to Somalia if you're feeling lucky.

I am no fan of bureaucracy (especially not the 'Austro-Hungarian' Kafkaesque type of it that's alive and kicking where I live), but it's a necessary evil. The state exists because people want security more than absolute freedom to do whatever the ef* they want. The state is essentially a huge social safety net that ensures human existence doesn't comprise solely of hiding in the woods cowering in fear of being robbed/raped/enslaved/killed by those with the bigger stick.

So get a grip, pal.
 
It's easier to rail against an imperfect system which most definitely has flaws than to defend an even more imperfect system which has catastrophical flaws.

Hence, Abe is always in attack mode.
 
And just how dumb is it to deny there is no better alternative available? What exactly do you propose - a real anarchy? Go play DayZ for a few hours to get an idea how that would work. Or have a trip to Somalia if you're feeling lucky.

I am no fan of bureaucracy (especially not the 'Austro-Hungarian' Kafkaesque type of it that's alive and kicking where I live), but it's a necessary evil. The state exists because people want security more then absolute freedom to do whatever the ef* they want. The state is essentially a huge social safety net that ensures human existence doesn't comprise solely of hiding in the woods cowering in fear of being robbed/raped/enslaved/killed by those with the bigger stick.

So get a grip, pal.

Really?!!

I'm a huge Kafka fan. I wouldn't want to live in his world, though.
 
"I've lived in this country for 20 years, but according to the census office, I don't exist."
-a British professor who teaches at my college
 
Humans are fundamentally selfish creatures. This will never change and makes any type of anarchy impossible.
I don't really understand how you've reached that conclusion. It's self-evident that humans don't need a state, because most human societies for most of human societies were stateless. And that doesn't simply mean hunter-gatherer bands, it encompasses some fairly complex societies such as the Icelanders, the Iroquois and the Cossacks. Now, as I said, you could argue that modern societies need a state, but that would require some more specific argument than "everyone is too selfish", because, as we've seen, any explanation that attempts to encompass all possible human society is going to fail.

What happens when a government loses control over an area?
I don't know; that's really too vague and acontextual a scenario to respond to. "What happens when the things goes to the stuff and then blip?"

Also, while the modern complex state is a phenomenon of the last 6000ish years, a state can also be simple.
How are you defining "state", here? I'm using it in the sense of an organisation that wields ultimate mediatory authority within society, rather than simply to describe any sort of collective-self organisation or leadership. As far as we can see it takes a certain level of social complexity to produce such an authority, although admittedly certain organisational forms that hint towards statehood can be seen in more simple societies. If, as you say to Abegweit, you're meaning the term simply as a synonym of "government", then how do you distinguish between simple and mediatory forms of government? (Do you think that such a distinction can even be drawn?)

The concept of a "government" has existed from the very first time multiple humans worked together in some fashion and one took led the rest. The human race is drawn to this type of social relationship.
What's your evidence for this?

The difference between you and me is this: I hate the state.
No, that isn't the difference between you and me.
 
One thing I don't understand is how ordinary everyday statists live their lives under this constant threat and simply shrug it off. Then there are people who claim to be anarchists and do the exact friggin same thing. Just how dumb is that?
I really hope you're fighting the state by more concrete means than posting barely coherent frothy-mouthed insults in an irrelevant internet forum then, hypocrite.
 
The problem is nothing can be perfect. We can abolish the current institutions, but new ones would just rise in their place. The way to reduce personal corruption in the government is to through elected legislatures. The United States is an example of a highly corrupt elected legislature, though at the same time, our system for all it's flaws is less corrupt then an autocracy would be.

I do not think this is self-evident. What is corruption (a), and where's the evidence that autocracies are intrinsically more corrupt than democracies (b)?

The reason I ask this is because autocratic governments don't necessarily have the same pretensions as democratic ones, and so what a betrayal of values is for the one is not a betrayal of values for the other.

Abegweit said:
Indeed they would. This is precisely the point - to allow the rise of institutions based on cooperation and voluntarism, not the jackboot.

You can't escape the phenomenon of coercion. John Stuart Mill phrases it better than I could:

John Stuart Mill said:
The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled. They consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest, who, at all events, did not hold it at the pleasure of the governed, and whose supremacy men did not venture, perhaps did not desire, to contest, whatever precautions might be taken against its oppressive exercise. Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects, no less than against external enemies. To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed on by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying upon the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws. The aim, therefore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty.

Bolded is the relevant part, though the rest is good too. Power structures are by their very nature coercive, no matter how that power is accumulated or those structures are built. So you can build up an enterprise entirely on cooperation, voluntarism, and more than probably a healthy amount of deceit, but when that enterprise comes up against opposing individuals, syndicates, and competing institutions, something's got to give and the essence of that conflict - of that competition and subsequent victory - is coercion and conquest, only superficially different than those ruling conquerors of ancient times.
 
Partly, yes. Why he was never killed during the purges is beyond me.
Why would he have been? He was basically the uncle of the Grand Army of the Republic, the strongest bastion of Palpatine's rule, and one of the members of the Chancellor's little Chommell clique. The Emperor might as well have had Sly Moore or Mas Amedda executed.
 
I do not think this is self-evident. What is corruption (a), and where's the evidence that autocracies are intrinsically more corrupt than democracies (b)?

The reason I ask this is because autocratic governments don't necessarily have the same pretensions as democratic ones, and so what a betrayal of values is for the one is not a betrayal of values for the other.

It is true that most autocracies are less corrupt in the sense of wasted money, and tend to operate more efficiently. This is because under an autocratic system there is one ruler making the big decisions, usually without substantial opposition. At the same time, having power concentrated in the hands of one ruler tends to cause them to become a megalomaniac.

Having an elected legislature means that the members will not only be held accountable on election day, but their self interests are pitted against the self interests of other members and, hopefully, the common good can prevail. Now this isn't always the case, in the United States our systems are decaying with the rise of SuperPAC's and hyper-partisanship.
 
Yuck, functionalism. :p

Well the main takeaway is that the State [definition pending] is fundamentally indistinguishable from non-governmental organizations, private enterprises, corporations, and what have you. It is, furthermore, a creature of capitalism.

With that in mind, if you wanted to eliminate the State and have it stick, you'd have to eliminate capitalism too - and possibly have the concepts of power and coercion eradicated from the minds of all men. But I'm sure Comrade Abegweit is not for that.

GamezRule said:
It is true that most autocracies are less corrupt in the sense of wasted money, and tend to operate more efficiently. This is because under an autocratic system there is one ruler making the big decisions, usually without substantial opposition. At the same time, having power concentrated in the hands of one ruler tends to cause them to become a megalomaniac.

Having an elected legislature means that the members will not only be held accountable on election day, but their self interests are pitted against the self interests of other members and, hopefully, the common good can prevail. Now this isn't always the case, in the United States our systems are decaying with the rise of SuperPAC's and hyper-partisanship.

I don't really see how this answers my question. You've outlined some very broad operational differences but nothing fundamental, nothing that gives me a good sense of what corruption is, or how we measure it, or what is inherent about different types of governments that makes corruption more or less prevalent.
 
[...]and possibly have the concepts of power and coercion eradicated from the minds of all men.
Just for the record, I'd say that any reasonable anarchist project would involve not making people forget about political power, but rather carving those concepts into their minds in giant fiery letters for ever and ever. There was no prelapsarian era before the invention of political power, just societies in which there have existed counterpowers capable of preventing its accumulation. If anything, it seems that stateless peoples are more keenly aware of the nature of political power than most people in state societies, because they are actively engaged in its suppression. It's sort of like how nobody is going to have a fire-safe house than the fire inspector.
 
Having an elected legislature means that the members will not only be held accountable on election day, but their self interests are pitted against the self interests of other members and, hopefully, the common good can prevail. Now this isn't always the case, in the United States our systems are decaying with the rise of SuperPAC's and hyper-partisanship.

There's a saying in D.C. that a senator's job is to protect their constituents from the predations of other senators. So true.
 
Well that was an informative bump.
 
Well, yes.
horse hockey False or deceitful statements; lies; exaggerations; nonsense. (a euphemism for horsesh*t); An expression of disbelief or disgust

New to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom