Please Justify the existence of the State

in a monarchy/theocracy you would have lords instead of states and you would be living within the real properties of these lords; as your state of being.

i dont want to go off topic much: but whenever i read your posts, doc velocity; i feel stupider, you are now going to be labeled as an ememy of mine.

I think we all have various reasons either way, but I can say the great thing about our state is that we can all our heads up high and know everyone around us holds a different set of ideas and traits. The fact the we can all co exist and accept that we are both individual and component is the beauty of life. We are extra fortunate in that we allow eachother complete freedom to be WHO we are. Perfectly in sink with reality and nature alike. At the end of the day this push against the state and the pull for the state is what makes this country great.

We allow this balance to do what it will, ever changing and transforming, this is the true essence of our freedom. It is the basis of all the freedom we
experience, the humanity we share, this dynamic life we lead, mirrored by our flag and our shared commons. Lets us not forget this last decade we have experienced, it was not an easy one, it is still dark, but America will pick herself and dust herself off. Our fears, our constant bickering and struggle e/insure our freedom.

The day there is no longer room for friction, disagreement or transformation is the day we should truly fear. I hope all of us can be the courage this country needs, the backbone that has always propelled this nation on the course of its unknown journey. We cannot control things, life is not a smooth sail straight on thru, we should not expect reality to deviate from our own personal observations of life. We can take great solace in the fact that bad times do not last for ever; the longer you feel bad the closer you are to resolution. Cheer up guys, we have been thru worse and remember, we are debating ideas and concepts that will accompany mankind to its totality. We are not meant to figure this stuff out or agree upon anything, that is the justification of our state.

Merry christmas

[edit on 25-12-2009 by Janky Red]

[edit on 25-12-2009 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Are the reasons stated above even moral and if so, can they only be accomplished by the state?

Morality is a luxury that came after Survival. When Mankind attained a steady routine of survival and rode it for a few hundred thousand years, he then started thinking about more abstract concepts in his spare time. Morality is such a concept.

Yes, an individual may have instinctive, built-in morals (Oh, there's a turtle flipped on its back, I must lend assistance to that poor animal), but that's not the conceptual Morality as applied to the formation of the State.

The State has no morality. The State cannot be moral. The State is the Hit Man for the People.

Then again, when the State tries to flex its muscle AGAINST the People (muscle that was GIVEN by the People in the first place), it is our duty to cut the State down to size. The State must not stand above the People.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Ausar
i dont want to go off topic much: but whenever i read your posts, doc velocity; i feel stupider, you are now going to be labeled as an ememy of mine.

Well... Don't go away mad.

— Doc Velocity

Anarchy is unbecoming of a civilized people.

Originally posted by DarthChrisious
Anarchy is unbecoming of a civilized people.

I think nature is anarchy enough

The state exists for the protection of the weak. In a previous post here cavemen hunting and defending was discussed. Thats what the cavemen did, protected the weak.
Doing so was in their own best interest of course, back to survival - of the species.
So the 'state' protects the weak and gets paid for it.

Unfortunately that idea has gone a bit far.

Finding the line is the hard part. The state does not exist without the people but if they take too much that is their downfall.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


I understand the back-engineering is easier. It is always easier to 'Monday morning quarterback' so to speak.

It is the invariability of the question that will do so. I specified and used the USA as an example to your statement, not as the sole State, but as an example.

Even in our earliest stages of civilization development, as in a family unit, there is an element of State. We create hierarchies to achieve unity, cohesion, and structure. Even at the most basic unit, there is no anarchy.

In a free society, the State is a means, not the end. In a controlled society (as in a Theocracy), the State is both the means and the end, as all power is derived from the top.

If each person were left to their own morality, there cannot be cohesion nor unity, for each will do according to their priorities.

Balance is sought after through first, a family unit (a matriarch, patriarch, etc.), then a group/band of family units through a village type structure. As population grows, the need for larger types of organization is again sought after.

I argue that the State should be kept to a minimum while providing the basic structure for a group of people/units, but the ultimate power must derive at the lowest levels, not the State level.

In response to the person who stated the Constitutional form of the USA has failed, I would say to a degree it has, but not in a manner that the structure and ideals have failed, but inevitably Man has mucked it up. Where power can be achieved, power will be held. Limiting the State should always be an ultimate goal because the smallest portions of societies will always know what is better for themselves than an ever reaching State.

Justification for an overall State is needed as population grows as to create a cohesive society that fits into the overall morality of said population. This is the very reason that most people in say, the United States have a taboo viewpoint on societies that retain a different set of morality and deem them 'wrong' or 'unjust'.

Originally posted by Ausar
in a monarchy/theocracy you would have lords instead of states and you would be living within the real properties of these lords; as your state of being.

I think you are misunderstanding the term 'State'. 'The State' is the system that allows one class of people to rule over, control and exploit, another lower class of people, regardless of where that control comes from (Lords or Politicians (actually not much difference)).

So regardless of who controls the system, as long as we have government of any kind you will have a 'State system'.

The State system takes the power out of your hands and puts it all in the hands of government, and private institutions, that only have their own interests at heart. The bigger the state gets the less power you have. The further the power is centralized the less it is concerned with you and the needs of the community where you live. And the natural tendency is for the State to grow without oversight or control, thus the fear of a one world government.

Think about this, if you have no local representation what happens if the government decides your town is the only candidate for a nuclear waste dump? Break it down more to how it is right now, who represents you if the government decides it needs your property?

The State also divides and controls your culture, it encourages hate and division, through it's media. It directs any anger of the working classes away from the real course of that anger, and perpetuates the hate of other races, cultures, religions etc. By keeping all the hate and fear and desperation caused by the State directed against ourselves, they are protected from it. They no longer have to fear a 'Peasants Revolution' ever again.

I think if people knew the real history of the working class they wouldn't be so quick to put them down, or not realise the power of their own history.
We need to find new ways to voice our discontent because all the old ways are not working, they've just become part of the system and are no longer a threat.

[edit on 12/25/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Even in our earliest stages of civilization development, as in a family unit, there is an element of State. We create hierarchies to achieve unity, cohesion, and structure. Even at the most basic unit, there is no anarchy.

The difference is under Anarchism those things would be voluntary. In a family situation those things are also voluntary.

Under a State system those things are coerced.

Anarchy is not without unity or structure, it's simply means a system with no centralized government. This is a big misconception that Anarchism means no rules, no leaders etc. Nothing wrong with 'leaders', what we are against is self appointed 'leaders' who force their leadership, coercion, on others. Nothing wrong with rules, drive on the right etc. The government, and the State, are not leaders they are controllers. They control the population to protect privilege and power.

If we had real leaders, as apposed to exploitative takers, then things could be a whole lot better.

The premise and objective of a state is to centralise power under one leader or group. It does not benefit the well being of the individual.

Municipalities are deliberately reduced in size and political power by the state - localisms denies control to a central system. In the UK, for example, bureaucratic local authorities are imposed (unelected) to restrict the overall control of a municipality.

Anarchy worked during the Spanish Civil, towns and villages shared property among the people. It was highly successful and showed anarchism could operate without chaos. Direct democracy benefited the community in ways, which the state can never aspire to. However, Franco destroyed and persecuted anarchists.

The state is all about control and power. Nothing else.

reply to post by infinite


Yes, the Spanish farmers collectivized, and organized without government or state, their resources for almost 2 years.

While at the same time going through a civil war against European fascism (Germany, Italy, Spain), and the revolution against their own state. And for those who still think Hitler was a socialist, he was on the side of the fascists (obvious to most of us). Many people from many countries joined in against the fascists in Spain. It was the real start of WWII, not Poland. The left, Anarchists, Socialists, Communists etc., was rising up against the growth of fascism across Europe, the PTB needed to stop this. So the world went to war.

The PTB stopped the growth of the power of the working class and their ability to be autonomous by sending them to war. The war was advertised as a war against fascism, when in reality it was a war against the working class. Fascism was not stopped, it was refined and modernized and most of it's threat, the working class, were hobbled.

Whenever the population started getting above it's station, the PTB would knock it back down with either war or depression. These days we have TV.

reply to post by DINSTAAR

"What justifications are there for the existence of a state?"

Some people are smarter and stronger than others. Some people are more powerful. When smarter, stronger, more powerful people set their mind to dominate others, they often succeed.

That is the justification for the state.

When you stand here in the gravity of earth, and you drop a ball from your hand, the ball "must" fall, right?

That is why there "must" be a state.

I am not looking for reasons it does exist, but for reasons it should.

There is no such thing as "should." What do you think "should" means? It is a manipulative concept, nothing more. "You should obey your superiors." "You should get a job." "You should listen to me." What do these statements really mean? They're simply ways of expressing ideas in such a manner so as to manipulate the listener into perceiving some sort of benefit.

I am looking for moral justifications to the existence of the state.

But what is this "morality" of which you speak? Morality is a purely subjective thing. Is it moral or immoral to have sex with a 16 year old girl? If it's immoral, then there are aln awful lot of immoral people in all the places inthe world, and several US states, where the law allows it. Also a lot of immoral people living hundreds of years ago when it was completely ordinary for girls to marry at a younger age. What about drugs? Is it immoral to take drugs? If so, all you people who drink caffeinated coffee every day are an awfully immoral bunch. Killing people? Is that immoral? So then people who defend themselves from murderers and rapists are immoral?

"Morality" is purely subjective. "Moral codes" are totally arbitrary tules based on totally situational conditions to provide some sort of benefit to...somebody. That somebody may or may not be you. Some people perceive it as completely moral to prostitute themselves, or others, out for sex. Some people perceive it as completely moral to blow themselves and you up as that they may please their god. Some people perceive it as completely moral to burn down abortion clinics and murder doctors to save lives.

Well, some people perceive it as "moral" to manipulate others into serving and obeying them. Why? Because they perceive benefit to it. Of course they perceive benefit to it. And some people probably do benefit from your compelled servitude. To those people...it is well, good and proper that the state should exist.

I believe the state is simply a parasite, much like how religion stands in the way of scientific progress, the state stands in the way of civil liberties. Most people are too brainwashed to see this, but when you start to uncover the many lies and conspiracies of "the state" it's quite clear that the state does nothing that is good. Anything supposedly good that the state does is a lie, such as

America is number one!
The U.S. is tolerant
The state gives us our rights, (which is another way of saying the state allows us to live)
etc

When you think about it, there never is a law of man, it is always a law of the jungle, just look at international affairs. We have a state, and a "terrorist" state, and so either way, war breaks out when there is disagreement. Someone posted that the state is a necessary third party to resolve differences, but when the state does not get what it wants, it simply takes and makes up justification later, most of which is untrue. There is too much potential for tyranny with the state. Even a limited government turns corrupt after a time, as American government has proven to us. A man is limited by what he can or can not do, that is it. If I had super hero powers I could do anything I wanted, but because I have limitations, I can be imprisoned. But, all that really means is that any of our supposed "leaders" can have the same thing done to them. Anything you can do to one man can also be done to yourself.

reply to post by LordBucket

Some people are smarter and stronger than others. Some people are more powerful. When smarter, stronger, more powerful people set their mind to dominate others, they often succeed.

This is a reason why it does exist, not why it should.

When you stand here in the gravity of earth, and you drop a ball from your hand, the ball "must" fall, right?

That is why there "must" be a state.

This is like saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is so.

Why must there be a state? Saying there must be a state because there must be a state is a non-answer.

There is no such thing as "should." What do you think "should" means? It is a manipulative concept, nothing more. "You should obey your superiors." "You should get a job." "You should listen to me." What do these statements really mean? They're simply ways of expressing ideas in such a manner so as to manipulate the listener into perceiving some sort of benefit.

Let me get this straight. There is no such thing as "should", but a state should, and must exist? I am not asserting anything, in fact, the only assertion being made is that a state should exist on the grounds, simply, that it must. Who is trying to manipulate who?

Since you will not justify the existence of the state morally, simply answer why it must exist, not why it does.

As an anarchist myself, I have to admit my immediate bias towards the OPs position, and I do so in the hopes that my comments be understood in the correct context, and also so no one accuses me of duplicity.

So far, all the pro-state arguments posted depict the necessity of community, but not that of state. For myself, I would also question the basic assumptions used by most posters for the necessity of community, but leaving that aside for the moment, so far, no one has addressed the need for a state, as in a legal-physical entity that consists of defined territorial borders plus a public (and often also secret) military force designed to prevent anyone from acting from their own volition as opposed to obedience to the state. If any of those pro-statist would like to clarify their positions to distinguish between community and state I would like to hear then new arguments, but I can't see them myself. We can have communities without having states, and the belief that we can't is one conditioned in us by the power elites whom states serve.

reply to post by rexpop


My only question to this would be: at what point does a community become so large that no longer does a communal structure have the ability to serve the community?

Each class, for lack of a better word, of society generally groups together in the interests of the whole. A farming community that wishes to just farm and live of the land without State interference will eventually arrive at a crossroads when Farmer A wishes to procure more land from Farmer B. Unfortunate but inevitable.

While I wish Farmer A and Farmer B can maintain a private contract between the consenting parties, as in land, according to my example; eventually something will change or people move on and thus the terms that were originally created through the community will change.

This type of anarchical society depends on honest, straightforward populaces. What is to stop large amounts of like-minded individuals from strong arming their way into such a community to impose their own values and ways of doing business upon the original set ways?

Thus enters the State, which should be limited in power and derived from the very People creating it. Then again, my argument for the State is quite different than most I believe, since I hold that individuals entering into private contracts should not be held accountable to the State, but rather the smallest denominator of that society.

Quick note/edit: Directed towards no one and more of a random thought.....a strong thread with an important question gets 4 flags, while a thread complaining about ATS membership gets 50 flags..........

[edit on 25-12-2009 by ownbestenemy]

reply to post by DINSTAAR

This is a reason why it does exist, not why it should.

I apologize. Apparently I did not explain myself clearly.

There is no such thing as should. I cannot explain to you why it "should" or "should not" exist because the word "should" has no meaning. A state either does, or does not exist. People either do, or do not create a state, and people either do, or do not allow it.

There is nothing more to it than that.

Why must there be a state? Saying there must be a state because
there must be a state is a non-answer.

There "must" be a state for exactly the reasons I gave. Consider again the metaphor: if you drop a ball while in earth's gravity it "must" fall." Yes? There is no question of whether the ball "should" fall, or who will benefit from it. There's no arguing whether it might be more appropriate for the ball to hover off the ground, then suddenly fly off into space.

When energy is applied that exceeds resistence offered, action occurs.

That is why there "must" be a state.

No other reason.

Now...from this line of reasoning, it therefore follows that it is not necessary for a state to exist to "protect" or "serve" the people governed by it. Clearly this is not so, for there have been many states that feed upon people like a parasite. Neither is it necessary for a state to exist to enforce behaviors, or maintain the peace, or any other excuse people are likely to offer you. Behaviors can exist simply by people choosing to engage in them. Peace can be maintained simply by people choosing to be peaceful. No delusion of "external" pressure is required.

Let's ask ourselves: What is a state? What is governance?

My answer is that these things are self-created, self-applied conventions of behavior chosen by any group. To think of the state as an external entity is somewhat distorted. It is people who create laws, it is people who enforce them. Whether those laws take the form of a written code and uniformed police officers, or the decision of a town to form a posse to run a criminal out of town, or even a simple family tradition to open presents on christmas eve, all of these things are manifestations of the same phenomenon: the various energies involved with human tendancy to create codes of self-conduct.

Nothing more.

Since you will not justify the existence of the state morally,
simply answer why it must exist, not why it does.

It must exist because these energies exist. To eliminate the state, you must either eliminate human proclivity to create rules for itself, or add sufficient resistence to prevent those energies from manifesting as action and deed. It might be possible to do that. Just like it's possible to drop a ball and not have it fall to earth....simply by not being on earth when you drop the ball.

But seeking for some kind of "moral justification" for why natural human energies "should" manifest themselves doesn't show any understanding of the energies involved.


If you don't want to have a state...then don't create one.


[edit on 25-12-2009 by LordBucket]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Without civil courts, there would be no neutral third party to resolve disputes in a public forum.

This is why gang drug dealers resort to violence to solve territorial and payment disputes.

In order to enforce contract law and civil court adjudication, one needs at least some kind of publicly paid enforcement agency, either private or publicly run, sanctioned by the populace, to uphold the courts decisions.

You also need some kind of court system to enact justice when someone has harmed another otherwise you get vigilante justice, which typically isn't fair and typically doesn't hold trials to review the evidence.

This also entails some kind of enforcement arm to uphold justice.

There are several ways to go about legislating what is considered "harm" to another, but this also typically takes some kind of public body to clearly define what harming another entails.

That's basically all you need to have a civil and orderly society.

Mnemeth, if you look at the history of pre-capitalist societies and civilizations, especially the ones that did'nt really have a "State", they still HAD some serious legal process that was respected by most people. In many African areas they have tribal courts, in the Amrican Natives griefs and crimes were treated during band councils with a lot of focus on objectivity and collective decision-making, and the same thing goes with the Nordic people (Vikings) who had courts organized in the form of open public assemblies were the "judges" were elected on the spot, and not a bunch of old bureaucrats paid by the government and who are usually out of touch with the people.

Moreover, these societies had far more fair and non-repressive penal system, aimed PROSCRIPTING (keeping away) problematic individuals rather than torturing them and keeping them in a cell. The crime rate was also very low, and even in some cases an exceptional issue, since most problems and griefs were discussed openly in councils assemblies, or other communal political process. All this without a State.

So yes, the legal system we have in modern North America is indeed "public", but it is restricted, exclusive and highly hierarchic, in a way that it makes the decision-making very alienating to most people, the enforcement of codes and rules take a despotic -and in some cases totalitarian- turn in reality, and it's ending up to give full monopoly of violence and legitimacy to a bunch of thugs we commonly refer to as the "cops", and a monopoly that is dangerous for civil liberties and individual rights (as you can see the examples everywhere these days). This creates situations were people can actually be harrassed, arrested and often beaten to a pulp (or tasered!) only for using their rights and being free... even when they were legal.

reply to post by DINSTAAR

must
need
necessary

After reading through our posts a few more times, I think I understand the source of our miscommunicaton. We appear to mean something very different by "necessity."

When I say that something "must" be, or that something is "necessary," I mean that it is inevitable.

You appear to mean....something different.

I've checked the dictionary for other possible meanings, and while I do see "inevitable" and "absolutely essential" which I interpret to mean the same thing, I also see "is a prequisite for" as another possible meaning. However, since you've given no thing for which you might be asking what the state is a prerequisite for, I assume that's not what you meant.

So again, you appear to be meaning something very different by these words than I do.

Keeping in mind that I've already proposed that the word "should" is purely a manipulative concept, and that the word itself has no real meaning...explain to me, please...what you mean by the words "must" "need" and "neccesary."

When you ask why the state "must" exist...what is it you're really intending to ask? If you're asking why it is inevitable, I've already answered that. If you're asking why it's a prequisite for something...then what is it you're asking what it's a prerequisite for?

Thank you.