This is not little "s" state here, this is The State, any form of governance that people choose. I believe a few fundamental things about a State, feel free to agree, disagree or rephrase. It is a States job to defend its citizens. There will be some form of "coercion" necessary in every State. A State is and should be the collective voice of the people living in that State, and must be recognized as such.
MY IDEAL ROLE OF THE STATE: Uphold property rights by providing a medium to settle disputes. Protect citizens from the physical agression of eachother. Protect citizens from external threats(IE: Foregin armies) How is "There will always be coercin" the role of government? It's more like you asserting that if there is a government they will always coerce people. What is the "collective voice of the people"? The majoirty? So %51 can shit all over the 49%. Ok so is it 2/3 majority? So the 1/3 gets shit on. %99 majority? The one percent is shit on. Even though it's only %1 that could still potentially be a million people. (Like India) We need freedom so we can all be free from: eachother.
The purpose of the state is....to do pretty much whatever the class-interests it's comprised of want it to do. You can believe whatever you want about the "ideal" role of the state, but you can't change the nature of violent authority. Authority is the most powerful, deadly, and addictive drug on the planet, and is responsible for turning human beings into unfeeling, predatory animals. I don't have the answer to how we'll ever be able to purge this world of violent, irrational people. But I do know that you don't want to hand them control of an entire geographical area!
alrighty, so how exactly do you plan on upholding property rights or protecting citizens from each other? If I don't recognize your "rights" to "your" property, what will you do? Will you put me somewhere I don't want to be? Will you do something to me that I don't want you to do? I don't care, probably 2/3, maybe an 85% supermajority, thats not actually important to this discussion, so lets stay on track. GG, would your ideal state provide no services?
To fuel this discussion, I propose this video, which was part of a previous Weekly Thread. Infact, it's from the very first weekly thread. What was the starting topic of these threads? Why, the purpose of the state http://forum.grasscity.com/politics...y-discussion-thread-tale-two-revolutions.html I'll quote the entire post, with the link to the video:
The state has an obligation to treat all of its citizens equally. The state also has a duty of care to its citizens. Its the states duty to collect taxes and use these taxes for the good and betterment of its people.
In Arizona: It's The State's job to fuck its People financially and find more creative ways to generate revenue for useless things while putting important things like education in the back seat. It's also The State's job to listen to lobbyists and ignore The People because the lobbyists have deeper pockets and provide more money up front than The People. The State doesn't care about The People, The State cares about money and the lack of it.
The purpose of the State is to lie, cheat, and steal, until the public at large realizes that they don't need the State, because it's completely possible to survive and prosper without Government. In fact, countries have prospered the most when Government was the smallest, and allowed people to freely associate and pursue their ends.
lolololololol I just want to point out, that, in the history of mankind, the above has never happened.
The purpose of the state is to ensure everyone is on an equal footing with equal opportunities to pursue whatever they want to do in life I feel. Thus, the state's role is to create an initial equality for everyone, which entails making sure everyone is fed, sheltered and given access to education, medical care etc. Beyond that, the state has a limited duty to uphold common law. I say limited because states typically run wild with this - it is NOT the states role to tell people what to put into their bodies, to tell people they can/cannot have abortions, tell people they can/cannot get married, they can/cannot commit suicide etc. These are PRIVATE decisions that have nothing to do with the community, the state or anyone besides the individuals involved. When other people begin to get involved and disputes of opinion begin to effect innocent people, then the state has a duty to ensure that nothing terrible happens. Basically, to mediate but not make the judgements FOR the people involved... unless it was something really terrible. In my opinion, no state should have an army, because armies are coercive and violent concepts that look out solely for national interest at the expense of other nations. No, we need an international peacekeeping force who have no ties to any particular country (as far as possible, the individual peace keeper is always going to feel a twinge of loyalty to their home country) and are only called upon when disputes between countries get out of hand. Basically, if no one had an army, how could they invade other countries and kill people? For that matter, how could there be threats to national security if there are no armies to invade or declare war upon you? It's a pretty hefty concept, radical even, but one that I really believe has potential to END the ugly affair of wars, or at least drastically limit their potential to occur - and if they do, the peacekeepers are sent to mediate the conflict and find a viable solution that is approved by the people of both countries.
It's not about what the state HAS BEEN or IS, it's about what the state OUGHT TO BE, and more precisely WHAT ITS PURPOSE IS. Purpose implies it has an end, an ultimate goal. As well as an origin, since purpose requires intent. Only when we have established these things can we better move forward in the process of creating superior states. Which is why our wise founders said, "In order to form a more perfect union" because the union would not be perfect, but would be a step towards the unreachable goal of perfection.
You can't purge the world of violent, irrational people. You need to remove yourself from the violence and irrationality. Most people don't mind being taken care of even if it means that others are being taken advantage of, and who are you to tell them they can't be sheeple? That is just as bad as the sheeple telling you that you can't be free. Instead you need to find the right people and the right place and get there. Eventually the parasites will move in and you will have to move on, but for the time being it would be great. Unfortunately the only societies to ever function like this are found in frontiers, and there is only one remaining frontier for us, albeit an endless frontier... I wish space travel and colonization would happen in my lifetime .
BINGO. To bad the American government currently has the definition mixed up as: "Do you best to control my every thought and action in the interest of a select few"
1. IF someone recks my property I can sue them in court. Thats the function of the court of law. Also if someone commits a violent act against me I can bring them to justice in court. Of course this must be supplemented with the second amendment so citizens can protect themsleves. Of course a police force is good to have also to keep order. Ideally for me this would be payed for by taxes the municipality or county collects. 2. I'll ask you to stop, if the situation warrants I will bring you to court. If the situation warrants I'll kill you. 3. No you get to put yourself places, unless you infringe on my rights. 4. No I won't infringe on your rights as set out by the Bill of Rights. 5. The only services needed are police and military. The military keeps the State safe from outside threats. The police keep citizens safe from each other.
