Justification for the State

[apathy maybe]

What is the purpose of the state? Why does it exist?

There are a few answers to this question and I shall address two here.

Firstly there is the claim that the state exists to (or should only exist to) provide external defence and internal order (including protection of property).
Secondly there is the claim that the state exists to provide the greatist good for the greatist number (the utilitarian arguement).

The first is simplisticly disproved. Look around.
The second also so. Look around.

Thus as fair as I can see because the state does not succed in what it is supposed to do, it is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished.

Do any capitalists (or anyone else) have any problems with what I have said? Can you offer any more justifications for the state?

[OleMarxco]

I will bet the C in my username is that it's something around the rhymes of "Because people are elected democratically into it and it serves the best of the majority of people and regulates the the society in an benevolently way".....blah.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 13 2005, 07:13 AM
What is the purpose of the state? Why does it exist?

There are a few answers to this question and I shall address two here.

Firstly there is the claim that the state exists to (or should only exist to) provide external defence and internal order (including protection of property).
Secondly there is the claim that the state exists to provide the greatist good for the greatist number (the utilitarian arguement).

The first is simplisticly disproved. Look around.
The second also so. Look around.

Thus as fair as I can see because the state does not succed in what it is supposed to do, it is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished.

Do any capitalists (or anyone else) have any problems with what I have said? Can you offer any more justifications for the state?
Purpose is to take my trash to the landfill.

Connect the sewer line, electricity, and water to m.y house.

Fill potholes in the street.

Get rich and famous. Have sex with interns. Take vacations.

That covers about 99%.

[OleMarxco]

And so could we do. It's not the beurocrats and officials in the state doing all of that? But the manual laborers, of course! In Communism, it would be the communes and the voluntary workers who did that.... Including having sex with interns (benefit) and being rich (on love) and famous (as in acknowledged and respected for their help).

I just lost the C in my username....or will be losing. 'Spose it will be removed pretty soon in not a too-far-from future :D

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 13 2005, 07:13 AM
What is the purpose of the state? Why does it exist?

There are a few answers to this question and I shall address two here.

Firstly there is the claim that the state exists to (or should only exist to) provide external defence and internal order (including protection of property).
Secondly there is the claim that the state exists to provide the greatist good for the greatist number (the utilitarian arguement).

The first is simplisticly disproved. Look around.
The second also so. Look around.

Thus as fair as I can see because the state does not succed in what it is supposed to do, it is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished.

Do any capitalists (or anyone else) have any problems with what I have said? Can you offer any more justifications for the state?
My problem with your argument is that it is simpleminded.

I'm sorry, but you need to come up with more evidence than, "look around", as if I'm supposed to accept your perception of whatever it is you're talking about as some profound set of facts.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
-James Madison

[Bolshevist]

A state exists because classes exist. This is historical materialism 101.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by Lenin i [email protected] 13 2005, 01:10 PM
A state exists because classes exist. This is historical materialism 101.
But... modern states as we know them only really came into being in 1648.

[bolshevik butcher]

that's the capitalist state, there were feudal and ancient states before that.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 13 2005, 07:13 AM
The first is simplisticly disproved. Look around.

Look around at what ? Sudan ?


Do any capitalists (or anyone else) have any problems with what I have said? Can you offer any more justifications for the state?

Who is going to provide justice, without the state ?

[jiujitsu]

There's nothing wrong with classes in America, because anyone with the desire and the sense can move between them easily. It's good to have winners and losers. The desire to be the best makes up a lot of the fuel behind this country and its people.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:15 PM
There's nothing wrong with classes in America, because anyone with the desire and the sense can move between them easily. It's good to have winners and losers. The desire to be the best makes up a lot of the fuel behind this country and its people.
"There's nothing wrong with a fascist dictator in America, because anyone with the desire and the sense can do a coup or become a trustworthy candidate as a replacement for the current one and become the fascist dictator himself easily." :rolleyes:

Thanks for admitting that you DO live in a class society.

And by the way, your stupid country ruled by a stupid monkey is not the whole world.

[RedLenin]

The state will exist as long as classes exist. The state is a tool of class oppression and thus will only disapeer when class division dissapeers. The only pourpose of the state is to serve the interests of one ruling class over an oppressed class. It is necessary to establish a (very decentralized democratic) dictatorship of the proletariat since class divisions will not disapeer imediately. When there is no longer a proletariat or bourgeosie, the state will wither away. Typical marxist view of the state, and I think it accurately explains it's role in society.

[apathy maybe]

The state fails to provide the things I mentioned.

The state fails to provide justice.

The things mentioned (including justice) could be provided as well if not better by small co-operatives.

The state of Iraq failed to provide its citizens with protection against invasion from the USA and other countries.

The state of the USA failed to provide its citizens with protection from planes crashing into buildings.

Lots of states fail to provide protection to their citizens from murder, rape and other violent crime.

When these crimes do happen, often the perpetrator is not found, the wrong person is convicted (even executed) or given a light sentence compared to others (compare black versus white in the USA).

Billions of people live in poverty. Even in the rich countries there is a large inequity between those at the top and those at the bottom.


Get rich and famous. Have sex with interns. Take vacations.
The state is supposed to do these things? :)


So it seems that according to some the state exists to maintain the class structure. So therefore it is evil and should be abolished.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:16 AM
I just lost the C in my username....or will be losing. 'Spose it will be removed pretty soon in not a too-far-from future :D
BAM! :lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:54 AM
The state will exist as long as classes exist. The state is a tool of class oppression and thus will only disapeer when class division dissapeers. The only pourpose of the state is to serve the interests of one ruling class over an oppressed class. It is necessary to establish a (very decentralized democratic) dictatorship of the proletariat since class divisions will not disapeer imediately. When there is no longer a proletariat or bourgeosie, the state will wither away. Typical marxist view of the state, and I think it accurately explains it's role in society.
Classes will never cease to exist.

The reason is that to obliterate classes, all people must be made "equal" by force.

The people doing the forcing will then become an "elite" class, hence there will be two different classes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:22 AM
Purpose is to take my trash to the landfill.

Connect the sewer line, electricity, and water to m.y house.

Fill potholes in the street.
The state usually has nothing to do with those things. All these thingsa re privatised to companies.

And these things aren't even an argument for the necessity of a state. These things would still get done regardless of the state or private companies. You have listed several things the state could do if it wanted. They're not justifications.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 01:16 PM
Classes will never cease to exist.
History proves you wrong.


The reason is that to obliterate classes, all people must be made "equal" by force.

No one needs to be forced into anything. The working class have justification to re-organise society and history demonstrates that that oppressed classes eventually realise that justification and create change.

The working class are a majority and will choose equality. The ruling class are minority and may or may not choose equality. If they choose not, then they are free to do as they please.

Violence and force only become necessary when this minority attempt to subvert the majority decision. At which point the workers are entitled to defend themselves.


The people doing the forcing will then become an "elite" class, hence there will be two different classes.

Either they accept the change or they don't. The workers have no interest in forcing people to do anything.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:15 AM
There's nothing wrong with classes in America, because anyone with the desire and the sense can move between them easily. It's good to have winners and losers. The desire to be the best makes up a lot of the fuel behind this country and its people.
You would appear to believe that capitalism is the ideal merotocracy.

However, the world in the way it is, does not imply this in the slightest.

The nature of class is that there is a definitive division between them economically, and if there was infact "easy" passage for those with some will to move between such classes, surely the classes would not be structured in the way that they are (heavy at the bottom, light at the top).

The nature of meritocracy is that those with success merit it, those with failure merit that.

Does the son of a CEO merit his 'sucess'?

Does a child born of a homeless family merit their 'failure'?