7 ms·

Your argument is a non sequitur: states are necessary, therefore states are not systems through which coercive force flows. If you want to argue that states ar

by ef4 14y ago

Your argument is a non sequitur: states are necessary, therefore states are not systems through which coercive force flows. If you want to argue that states are necessary, fine. But call a spade a spade. Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. The lack of clarity on this issue leads to a lot of bad conclusions. When we argue that the state should solve any particular problem, we are explicitly saying the problem needs to be solved by coercive force. Maybe that's necessary. But let's not have any illusions about how states work and how laws are enforced.

baddox 14y ago
> Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. That's part of what a state is, but it's more than that. A state is a violent organization that has managed to convince the vast majority of society that its violent actions are acceptable. In any conceivable society (state or no state), you will have violence. The difference between "criminals" (druglords, thieves, rapists, etc.) and "government" is that the vast majority of society condemns the violence of the former but accepts (and often even praises) the violence by the latter.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  > A state is a violent organization that has managed to convince the vast majority of society that its violent actions are acceptable. Got that a bit backwards there. A state is a violent organization formed by society meant to enforce the rules of said society. We prefer the state to criminals generally because we have some say in how the state works or find its rules preferrable to the criminals.
  - baddox 14y ago
    We as individuals don't have a say in how the state works in any meaningful way. There is absolutely no difference, in practice or theory, between a "criminal" busting down my door or a "DEA agent" busting down my door. The fact that >50% of society supposedly approves of the "DEA agent" is no consolation and certainly no justification to the victim.
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      You can vote, and that is proportionally meaningful. Want more say, convince more people to agree with you. You have zero say about anything criminals do. There is a vast difference.
      - baddox 14y ago
        That's simply not true. The odds of my own actions being able to prevent or interrupt a common criminal are vastly higher than the odds of a single vote affecting the outcome of any but the smallest local election. Again, proportions simply do not matter to the victim of violence. Like I said, if DEA agent busts down my door and shoots me, it is absolutely no consolation or justification that >50% of voters approve of drug prohibition. If you propose the question "is it okay for a robber to take 30% of my paycheck as long as 51% of my community is okay with it?" most people will say "of course not!," but if you propose the exact same question, but with "a robber" to "the government," most people will say "yes of course that's okay."
        gnaritas 14y ago
        > The odds of my own actions being able to prevent or interrupt a common criminal are vastly higher than the odds of a single vote affecting the outcome of any but the smallest local election. I'm not talking about a crime; I'm talking about government rule vs warlord rule. And the issue is which most people prefer, not which allows you a better chance to disobey. > Again, proportions simply do not matter to the victim of violence. Like I said, if DEA agent busts down my door and shoots me, it is absolutely no consolation or justification that >50% of voters approve of drug prohibition. It absolutely is consolation and justification for the majority of people who support that policy. You might not like it; but individual liberty is not unlimited and the will of society, right or wrong, beats the pants off any other form of government we've found. > If you propose the question "is it okay for a robber to take 30% of my paycheck as long as 51% of my community is okay with it?" most people will say "of course not!," but if you propose the exact same question, but with "a robber" to "the government," most people will say "yes of course that's okay." The robber is taking something without giving something back; the government is taking their share of your wages for services rendered to you as a citizen. Completely different situations.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Your argument is a non sequitur: states are necessary, therefore states are not systems through which coercive force flows. I did not say that at all. I am OK with states being systems through which coercive force flows, because I think channeling and supervising said force usually results of less of it flowing than otherwise would. Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. It's hardly the only distinguishing feature. States also build infrastructure, promulgate laws, provide forums for resolution of disputes and so forth. Your argument as made here is both narrow and immature.
- kragen 14y ago
  All kinds of organizations and people build infrastructure; churches and companies also promulgate laws and provide dispute-resolution forums. What distinguishes the state from other organizations that perform similar tasks is that the state holds a monopoly on (legitimate) violence. This is not a "narrow and immature" point of view; this is the normal definition. Quoting Wikipedia: The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's,[6][7][8][9][10] which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.
  - gbhn 14y ago
    Perhaps a good intuition pump is how we react when this breaks down. If some group within a state's borders is using violence (i.e. sending soldiers to attack skyscrapers in another country), the attacked country has a cassus belli against the harboring country. This feature is so critical to how the modern system treats territorial integrity that we sometimes refer to states which can't control violent groups within their own borders as "failed states."
    - guessWhy 14y ago
      Was this example really necessary? You basically said: If terrorists (who, by the way, happened to travel to Afghanistan once) attacked the WTC, the US have a casus belli against Afghanistan. See, the reason why the war in Afghanistan is controversial is precisely because it is not clear that a country has a casus belli against another country if there is a (remote) connection of offenders to that country. In fact, the pilots lived and planned most of the plot in Germany. A better example of a failed state would be the results of the war on drugs in Mexico.
smegglybones 14y ago
take it back to harvard, boys. this place is for conversin'.
BoredAstronaut 14y ago
How do you measure the is-ness of the state? By it's budgetary expenditures? Many existent states (like Canada) have relatively small military budgets. For them, wielding or even threatening to wield violence is not their primary reason for being. Their primary reason for being is to ensure the health and welfare of their citizens, and they do so not by threat of violence, but by collection and distribution of taxes and passing of laws. The vast majority of people in most democratic societies do not require the threat of arrest and imprisonment to follow the majority of laws. Assuredly there are minor disagreements about which the validity of certain laws, and many people cheat a little here and there. But when the majority of citizens believe that the majority of the law, and the state which imposes it, is unjust, you have an authoritarian government, and a revolution is inevitable. It might also be worth noting that even if, based on budgetary spending, the US government is primarily an institution of the force and its display, most of that is happening outside of US soil. Most of it, in fact, is deployed in protecting sea lanes for the benefit of shipping and the people who rely on it: namely, everyone on Earth. I'm not American, and I don't like everything about America, but I'm damn grateful for the fact that the American government is funding the security of the machinery which keeps food and goods flowing around the world, since a lot of people where I live (Canada) would have difficulty surviving the Winter (and maybe even in Summer) without it. To what extent global commerce and trade are just or unjust is another question, but I suggest it can be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and that the vast majority is far more beneficial than detrimental to everyone involved.
- sisyphism 14y ago
  The definition of a state as a "geographic monopoly on the legitimate use of violence" is not particularly controversial. It is the definition of a state as started by Max Weber and sociologists in the tradition of political realism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence Max Weber's definition is used by wide variety of political factions, and is not a construct of anarchists\libertarians. During the Iraq War when discussing the use of mercenaries, the current President Barack Obama was quoted as stating: "the core of our military relations to our nation, and how accountability is structured, you are privatizing something which sets a nation state apart, which is a monopoly on violence." [1] Any action that is legitimate for the state institution to enforce, but would not be legitimate or legal for a non-state institution to enforce, derives its legitimacy from this monopoly on violence. This definition is simply stating that unlike other social insitutions, the state is the only institution which has the power to commit legal incarceration, execution, and confiscation. The fact that non-state organization cannot impose taxes upon individuals and threaten fines and incarceration for non-payment indicates that taxation is a forcible (violent) means of appropriating revenue. If it were not, the revenue would be referred to as a donation, purchase, charity, or trade. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ

by ef4 14y ago

baddox 14y ago

> Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. That's part of what a state is, but it's more than that. A state is a violent organization that has managed to convince the vast majority of society that its violent actions are acceptable. In any conceivable society (state or no state), you will have violence. The difference between "criminals" (druglords, thieves, rapists, etc.) and "government" is that the vast majority of society condemns the violence of the former but accepts (and often even praises) the violence by the latter.

gnaritas 14y ago
> A state is a violent organization that has managed to convince the vast majority of society that its violent actions are acceptable. Got that a bit backwards there. A state is a violent organization formed by society meant to enforce the rules of said society. We prefer the state to criminals generally because we have some say in how the state works or find its rules preferrable to the criminals.
- baddox 14y ago
  We as individuals don't have a say in how the state works in any meaningful way. There is absolutely no difference, in practice or theory, between a "criminal" busting down my door or a "DEA agent" busting down my door. The fact that >50% of society supposedly approves of the "DEA agent" is no consolation and certainly no justification to the victim.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    You can vote, and that is proportionally meaningful. Want more say, convince more people to agree with you. You have zero say about anything criminals do. There is a vast difference.
    - baddox 14y ago
      That's simply not true. The odds of my own actions being able to prevent or interrupt a common criminal are vastly higher than the odds of a single vote affecting the outcome of any but the smallest local election. Again, proportions simply do not matter to the victim of violence. Like I said, if DEA agent busts down my door and shoots me, it is absolutely no consolation or justification that >50% of voters approve of drug prohibition. If you propose the question "is it okay for a robber to take 30% of my paycheck as long as 51% of my community is okay with it?" most people will say "of course not!," but if you propose the exact same question, but with "a robber" to "the government," most people will say "yes of course that's okay."
      - gnaritas 14y ago
        > The odds of my own actions being able to prevent or interrupt a common criminal are vastly higher than the odds of a single vote affecting the outcome of any but the smallest local election. I'm not talking about a crime; I'm talking about government rule vs warlord rule. And the issue is which most people prefer, not which allows you a better chance to disobey. > Again, proportions simply do not matter to the victim of violence. Like I said, if DEA agent busts down my door and shoots me, it is absolutely no consolation or justification that >50% of voters approve of drug prohibition. It absolutely is consolation and justification for the majority of people who support that policy. You might not like it; but individual liberty is not unlimited and the will of society, right or wrong, beats the pants off any other form of government we've found. > If you propose the question "is it okay for a robber to take 30% of my paycheck as long as 51% of my community is okay with it?" most people will say "of course not!," but if you propose the exact same question, but with "a robber" to "the government," most people will say "yes of course that's okay." The robber is taking something without giving something back; the government is taking their share of your wages for services rendered to you as a citizen. Completely different situations.

anigbrowl 14y ago

Your argument is a non sequitur: states are necessary, therefore states are not systems through which coercive force flows. I did not say that at all. I am OK with states being systems through which coercive force flows, because I think channeling and supervising said force usually results of less of it flowing than otherwise would. Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. It's hardly the only distinguishing feature. States also build infrastructure, promulgate laws, provide forums for resolution of disputes and so forth. Your argument as made here is both narrow and immature.

kragen 14y ago
All kinds of organizations and people build infrastructure; churches and companies also promulgate laws and provide dispute-resolution forums. What distinguishes the state from other organizations that perform similar tasks is that the state holds a monopoly on (legitimate) violence. This is not a "narrow and immature" point of view; this is the normal definition. Quoting Wikipedia: The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's,[6][7][8][9][10] which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.
- gbhn 14y ago
  Perhaps a good intuition pump is how we react when this breaks down. If some group within a state's borders is using violence (i.e. sending soldiers to attack skyscrapers in another country), the attacked country has a cassus belli against the harboring country. This feature is so critical to how the modern system treats territorial integrity that we sometimes refer to states which can't control violent groups within their own borders as "failed states."
  - guessWhy 14y ago
    Was this example really necessary? You basically said: If terrorists (who, by the way, happened to travel to Afghanistan once) attacked the WTC, the US have a casus belli against Afghanistan. See, the reason why the war in Afghanistan is controversial is precisely because it is not clear that a country has a casus belli against another country if there is a (remote) connection of offenders to that country. In fact, the pilots lived and planned most of the plot in Germany. A better example of a failed state would be the results of the war on drugs in Mexico.

smegglybones 14y ago

take it back to harvard, boys. this place is for conversin'.

BoredAstronaut 14y ago

How do you measure the is-ness of the state? By it's budgetary expenditures? Many existent states (like Canada) have relatively small military budgets. For them, wielding or even threatening to wield violence is not their primary reason for being. Their primary reason for being is to ensure the health and welfare of their citizens, and they do so not by threat of violence, but by collection and distribution of taxes and passing of laws. The vast majority of people in most democratic societies do not require the threat of arrest and imprisonment to follow the majority of laws. Assuredly there are minor disagreements about which the validity of certain laws, and many people cheat a little here and there. But when the majority of citizens believe that the majority of the law, and the state which imposes it, is unjust, you have an authoritarian government, and a revolution is inevitable. It might also be worth noting that even if, based on budgetary spending, the US government is primarily an institution of the force and its display, most of that is happening outside of US soil. Most of it, in fact, is deployed in protecting sea lanes for the benefit of shipping and the people who rely on it: namely, everyone on Earth. I'm not American, and I don't like everything about America, but I'm damn grateful for the fact that the American government is funding the security of the machinery which keeps food and goods flowing around the world, since a lot of people where I live (Canada) would have difficulty surviving the Winter (and maybe even in Summer) without it. To what extent global commerce and trade are just or unjust is another question, but I suggest it can be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and that the vast majority is far more beneficial than detrimental to everyone involved.

sisyphism 14y ago
The definition of a state as a "geographic monopoly on the legitimate use of violence" is not particularly controversial. It is the definition of a state as started by Max Weber and sociologists in the tradition of political realism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence Max Weber's definition is used by wide variety of political factions, and is not a construct of anarchists\libertarians. During the Iraq War when discussing the use of mercenaries, the current President Barack Obama was quoted as stating: "the core of our military relations to our nation, and how accountability is structured, you are privatizing something which sets a nation state apart, which is a monopoly on violence." [1] Any action that is legitimate for the state institution to enforce, but would not be legitimate or legal for a non-state institution to enforce, derives its legitimacy from this monopoly on violence. This definition is simply stating that unlike other social insitutions, the state is the only institution which has the power to commit legal incarceration, execution, and confiscation. The fact that non-state organization cannot impose taxes upon individuals and threaten fines and incarceration for non-payment indicates that taxation is a forcible (violent) means of appropriating revenue. If it were not, the revenue would be referred to as a donation, purchase, charity, or trade. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ