It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Please Justify the existence of the State

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by LordBucket

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.

You did not give a reason as you why it must, just simply reasserted that it must. That is the logical equivalent of saying that A equals B because B equals A. The statement has no meaningful information.

There is a reason gravity exists, whether we truly understand it or not.

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

That is why there "must" be a state.

Again, you mention that the state exists because it is a logical conclusion. Explain why it is logical. Explain how it is the only logical conclusion possible.

No other reason.

I was afraid that is all there was.

So, in your own view, there is no way to morally justify the existence of a state and the actions taken by the state to assert authority over people (what makes a state a state to begin with).

If you're asking why it is inevitable, I've already answered that.

You have not and that is my question. Semantic deflections aside, how is the existence of a state logically inevitable, unavoidable, or determined?

To answer the question with "it is human nature" or "because it is a physical law of nature" is a non-answer.

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

Often, victims blame themselves for their own abuse.

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 07:50 PM

Originally posted by LordBucket
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.

How have you answered that?

I'm not even sure you understand what 'the State' is in context to what the OP is asking?

If you look hard at history you can clearly see the 'State system' being formed by those in power, often in answer to a crises created by the state. Sometimes by pressure from the people, but only once the PTB find a way to manipulate it to their own advantage. The state school system is a prime example, the working classes wanted education just like the rich got, so the state gave it to us, and used it as a way to condition us, not educate us.

Our biggest mistake was allowing the state to exist in the first place. Now most people couldn't survive without it. We have been conditioned to believe the state is normality, that the state is our savior, that it is there to protect us (while at the same time creating the evils it claims to protect us from).

The state doesn't care about Humans, it has no compassion, it has no empathy, it just exists and will continue to exist, and grow, until it completely devours any kind of liberty you might think you have. It does this because we allow it to, we allow it to tell us what to do with our lives, we allow it to do our thinking for us, you give the state all your power, and that is not freedom.

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 08:08 PM
The uncanny parallels to say the movie "The Matrix" and the "State" as an entity can be seen reading through this post.

In case you haven't seen the movie, we eventually learn the Matrix has been created time and time again and the 'free' peoples have risen against it only to eventually reinstate it.

Similar to how maybe there is no justification for having a State, but people will invariably clump together, abolish the current State, only to reinstate the State to what they think is better.

It is just a circle it seems as it turns and turns.

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 08:22 PM
I believe in the State.
Though IMO the State should be more like an umpire.
The State needs to provide a safe and level playing field for everyone to be able to live in relative safety.

The state needs to keep businesses in line so they don't ripoff people.

And the state need to keep everyone safe from threats foriegn and domestic.

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by DINSTAAR

So, in your own view, there is no way to morally justify the existence of
a state and the actions taken by the state to assert authority over people

...yes and no...but kind of missing the point. Yes, asserting authority over people can be morally justifed by some people...but understand that "moral justification" is not a fundamental thing. Like I've already explained, morality is completly a subjective phenomenon.

For example...let us say that there exists a group of people, A. Group A believes in some god. They have no food. They are hungry. Now let us say that there is also a Group B. Group B does not believe in Group As god. But they have food. So, Group A might use the logic that because Group B does not believe in their god, they are evil. And therefore they do not deserve to live. And therefore it is morally proper and correct for them to maim and rape and kill Group B, take their food, and eat it.

And thus, we have "moral justification."

But, you and I, looking on this as a third party, not sharing Group A's sense of morality, do we look on this and conclude it was a "moral" decision? Probably not. Not according to our sense of morality, anyway. But, our sense of morality is equally as subjective as theirs.

So, is it possible to "morally justify" asserting authority over people against their will? Of course. It happens every day in real life. Anything can be "morally" justified. This would be obvious if you perceived "morality" as an entirely subjective value system created by people, instead of as some sort of fundamental "external" thing.

how is the existence of a state logically inevitable,
unavoidable, or determined?

It is inevitable in the sense that humans create it. For it to not exist...all that would have to happen would be for humans to not create it. But they do. If you ask me why the ball fell, and I answer "because you dropped it," it's somewhat missing the point for you to then turn around and ask me "But why is it logically inevitable that the ball be dropped?" isn't. You could choose to hold on to the ball. But if you do drop it, yes, it's probably going to fall. isn't logically inevitable that human-created authorities exist. Humans could choose anarchy. But they don't.

There is no reason for the state to exist except that people create it.

You did not give a reason as you why it must

There is no reason for the state to exist except that people create it.

Does the state serve some particular purposes? Sure. But rules and authority are not the only means through which those purposes could be fulfilled. The state is not a "prerequisite" for people to live pleasant, honest, peaceful lives with one another. People could choose to honor their agreements without courts, laws or attorneys.

To answer the question with "it is human nature"
is a non-answer.

...ok, but if it's not human nature to create rules for itself...then why do these rules exist?

There's no reason for them to exist other than the fact that people create them. You suggest that it is a non-answer, but I suggest that there is no other answer.

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by grey580

That would be nice but exactly how would 'the state' do that?

'The State' is a collection of systems and entities that are used together by TPTB to control, there is zero oversight of this system. There is no one entity you can go to to make sure all these seemingly separate systems are not used as a whole, by TPTB, to control the population.

There can be no good that comes from any system that allows a minority group to have control and power over the majority. It's nothing but exploitation.

The state can only be broken down by breaking down the systems that form the state. The basics being school, church, military, government, the private ownership of the means of production etc...

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by DINSTAAR

A side note regarding this from the original post that I missed:

edit to clarify: 'State' is referring to a system that governs peoples
lives deriving power from its legal use of force.

Ok. Yes. But this is a circular constuct.

The use of force is "legal" because the state said so. It is the state saying so that makes the use of force by the state legal. There is no "legality" or "illegality" without "state."

"Law" is simply an arbitrary convention created by a group for use by a group.

Imagine, for example, that there is only one human being on the whole of the planet earth. Would there be any laws? No. Now imagine that there are two people. And one day, they agree to both abide by he rule that they won't kill each other. At this point, there is no "consequence" for breaking the rule. These two people then have a child. That child never explicity agreed to the rule that they wouldn't kill each other, but he nevertheless grows up in a "society" where that rule is the accepted convention.

Examine that for a moment.

And now, fast forward a bit. There are now ten people. And they decide to update the rule to include a consequence. Should any one of the ten of them kill someone, the other nine will get together and kill that person in return. We now have a rule, and a consequence for breaking it. We now have a law.

Fast forward again.

There are now 100 people. Enough that they don't all know each other very well. And, 20 of those people get together and agree to update the rule. In the event of someone breaking the rule, instead of everyone gettign together and killing them, a single person will be appointed. That persons job is to walk around all day looking for people who have broken the rule. We now have a sheriff. And, if anyone is found to have broken the rule, it is the sheriff's responsibility to kill the person who broke the rule.

Only 20 out of 100 people were involved in the meeting. Only those people agreed to the new rule. However, in the entire history of the world up to this point, nobody has ever actually killed anyone, and they didn't really want to be involved with having to hunt down a murderer and kill them anyway, so they passively accept the decision made by the 20. Or at least...they don't do anything to oppose it. And, once again, new children are born into this society. From their point of view...there will have always been "sheriff's" responsible for enforcing "the law."

But "the law" has always been and will always be, nothing but a set of arbitrary rules created by the group, for the group, enforced by the group, and maintained by the group.

Nothing more.

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:52 PM
reply to post by LordBucket

The use of force is "legal" because the state said so. It is the state saying so that makes the use of force by the state legal. There is no "legality" or "illegality" without "state."

Thank you for actually understanding this. This is the entire point of the thread. Most people just glance at my rantings and move on. You, however, understand exactly my problems with the existence of the state. We have found differing conclusions, but at least someone is willing to think about it.

edit: star for you...

[edit on 26-12-2009 by DINSTAAR]

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 09:54 AM
The State is Un-Just and therefore illegal in our form of government a Republic. If we say so then it is so. no higher athority to resort too.
no one wants to be LIABLE is what I see.. everyone wants to shed liabilty. well get over it... you are liable... even for the stuff you dont agree with.
so, complain all you want - just dont take any action and you will be ok.
until they come for you that is.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in