[Sphinx]

The state exercises violence over its people under certain conditions. What gives the state this right, in your opinion?

[Senter]

The state as a structure does not generate the wealth needed to fund a successful society. Neither does the culture, the educational system, the courts, etc. Only the economy, i.e. the system of providing for all the above is the foundation of any country. All else comprises the superstructure which both springs from the needs of the foundation, and serves the maintenance of the foundation.

Hence the state's purpose is to provide all things that are conducive to the successful continuation of the foundation, i.e. the economy. That includes laws that benefit those who "own" and shape the economy (the largest businesses in the case of capitalism), laws that maintain a military, laws that ensure the compliance and complacency of the public, a system of education that serves the needs of business, etc.

[Potemkin]

The state exercises violence over its people under certain conditions. What gives the state this right, in your opinion?

The reason which is usually given for such violence is to safeguard the security of the nation. The justification for it is a different matter, and depends on how the existence of state authority itself is justified. For example, the authority of an hereditary monarchy is usually Divine Right, whereas the authority of a democratic republic is usually some form of popular election which gives a 'mandate' to the government. Any such justification is fictitious, of course, but is also necessary. State authority and state violence must exist, if the nation-state is to exist and not be overrun by its enemies, and to be stable and acceptable to the majority of its citizens it must be theoretically justified in some way. The objective truth of that justification is irrelevant, so long as most citizens accept it.

[Sphinx]

it must be theoretically justified in some way.

What justification is acceptable for *you*?

[Potemkin]

What justification is acceptable for *you*?

I regard them all as being equally fictitious. However, I recognise the necessity of having such justifications, no matter how fictitious they may be, due to the need to retain the support of the population. Rationalistic or objective reason for using state violence are usually insufficient to satisfy most people's sense of what it 'right', so it has to be justified in terms of "defending democracy" or "defending our freedom" or some nonsense like that. I regard any such justification as a 'noble lie', in the Platonic sense.

[Sphinx]

State authority and state violence must exist, if the nation-state is to exist and not be overrun by its enemies

Doesn't this sound like the "social contract (i.e., common good)" choice?

[Potemkin]

Doesn't this sound like the "social contract (i.e., common good)" choice?

The concept of the "social contract" is a metaphor taken from the business world, in other words from bourgeois legality. It is just as fictitious as the divine right of kings. I am merely pointing out that if a nation-state wishes to survive in a predatory world, it must have the means of defending itself from its enemies, both external and internal. This requires the use of violence from time to time. How this is justified to its own people is interesting and can tell us a lot about the nature of the culture of that nation, but is ultimately irrelevant to the reality of what is happening.

[Sphinx]

You line of reasoning is similar to that of Theodore Herzl. He said that the "social contract" legality has been refuted historically (but didn't say how), and that rationalism is the basis of states in our modern time. I don't understand what is meant to have "rationalism" as the basis of the state, and how is this different from a social contract, and I really appreciate if someone explains this to me.

I know the meaning of "rationalism" from an economic perspective (i.e., having a predefined set of preferences over the outcomes of one's actions, and thus picking the action that results in the outcome with the highest preference). How does this apply in this context? And how is this different from the idea of a social contract? I don't know

[Cookie Monster]

The state exercises violence over its people under certain conditions. What gives the state this right, in your opinion?

As Potemkin pointed out, there is a diversity of justifications for why states exercise power. None of them are really true to the reason why states exercise them.

States need a monopoly on the use of force in order to ensure the continuation of its territory and population. This means that it needs to make sure that its population doesn't murder one and another; and that it secures its population and territory against external powers (as aggression by those powers would undermine the state's monopoly on the use of force and challenge its control over territory).

Without the monopoly on the use of force, and ultimately without territory and population, a state would cease to exist.

[Rugoz]

As a commie Potemkin doesn't agree with the existing social contract so obviously he will deny its existence. Lame.

[TheEngineer]

The state exercises violence over its people under certain conditions. What gives the state this right, in your opinion?

The only legitimate function of government is to recognize and protect the rights of the people. The three basic rights of the people are Life, Liberty, and Property. Life is to be alive; Liberty is to live according to one's virtue; and from human capacity to fashion and use tools to affect self-virtuous lives, Property. As such, the state exists to guarantee the inherent right of exercise, exercise being the personal maintenance of rights.

Thus, the state does not have a right to exercise violence over the people except in order to guarantee the people's inherent right of exercise of their right to Life. If one living person hinders the continuance of another person's ability to remain living, then the state must ensure to the best of its abilities that all parties remain living. This may only be possible by physical force in order to balance the ability of each party to live.

This only legitimate use of force against the people by the state is derived by popular sovereignty, which recognizes the equality of rights of all persons in Life, Liberty, and Property. In order for a state of popular sovereignty to exist at all, the individual persons of the people must agree to and adhere to a contract of societal rules (a social contract.) Thus, the root of any legitimate right of a state to issue legitimate violence against a person, of the people, is the social contract by which the government of the state was created for guaranteeing the right of the people to exercise their rights.

[Ombrageux]

The protection and cultivation of a people.

[Paradigm]

"Superior force" comes closest. The state is ultimately founded on coercion. However, that "superior force" is achieved by forging alliances. No one person has enough might by themselves to rule over everyone else with impunity. The most bloodthirsty tyrants require at least the allegiance of the military. States likely have their origin in conquest. First it was slavery. The conquerors became the masters and the conquered became the slaves. This was the first class distinction to emerge, but did not yet constitute a state. It was through agriculture and private property that class differences further emerged, creating an aristocracy that owned the largest amounts of land and could hire others to farm it. This arrangement was acceptable to people so long as there was enough for everyone, but in times of famine or shortage, this arrangement would lead to resentment toward the ruling class, who required a soldier class to defend their holdings. One way to quell this popular unrest was to go out and invade other populations. The soldiers stationed in foreign territory did not have access to the goods and services at home, and the local population was hesitant to trade with them, so what the empire would do was to pay its soldiers in coins minted with the face of the ruler on them, and a particular value assigned to them. The empire would then demand tribute from its conquered territories in a given quantity of these coins. This created a demand for the coins, for which people were willing to trade goods and services. This was the beginning of markets as we know them, and our current system of taxation is an outgrowth of this system of tribute.

So the state has always been a protection racket to protect the privilege of the ruling class. Within that system, however, the state can serve the interests of others in the process. Because we live in a world where statehood grants legitimacy, being recognized as a state by other states gives one a degree of protection that one might otherwise not have. A Palestinian state may be no more legitimate than an Israeli state, but having such a system in place would surely be a blessing for its people given their circumstances. So the state as such is rooted in nothing other than power and violence, but in a world where states are the norm, one must grapple with this power pragmatically, and wield it according to one's self-interest.

[Senter]

The state exercises violence over its people under certain conditions. What gives the state this right, in your opinion?

That depends on which state you refer to. In the U.S. and UK and Canada and other "democracies" it is the consent of the governed that gives the state the right to exercises violence over its people under certain conditions.

In N. Korea and other dictatorships it is the dictatorship that gives the right.

Did I really need to point this out?

[Dandelion]

The state exercises violence over its people under certain conditions. What gives the state this right, in your opinion?

I voted Social Contract. If the state exercises anything over the people that causes imbalances, injustice and elitism by nepotism, privilege or brute force then the State and the People are two elements of societies that will be at war with one another. If the State's function is to administer the cohesion, justice and well being of the People and does so according to a set of laws implicit in the concepts of Justice then internecine warfare will be reduced. Attacks from outside the nation's borders are the only other reason the State has to mobilize the population to defend itself.

If the People are so divided in terms of their worth in the eyes of the State then even these struggles will be a matter of taking sides and of setting one group of the population against another.

Nationalism in a pure form of justice under the law of the social contract (depending on the conditions of that contract and whether they serve the rights and needs of the People) will hold a nation together in times of diversive influences from outside of the nation state.

If these diversive issues originate within the nation state then the State itself becomes one or other of these forces and the nation divides, is weakened from within, supported by attack from without and will not last long unless the State transforms into a fascist entity, unquestioned and unquestionable, in the manner of a monotheistic creed.

[Potemkin]

I voted Social Contract.

What 'Social Contract'? I don't recall signing a social contract. Do you need to have two witnesses or just a notary?

The whole concept of a 'social contract' is, in fact, a metaphor. Factually and legally speaking, there is no such thing. And even its usefulness as a metaphor is questionable.

If these diversive [sic] issues originate within the nation state then the State itself becomes one or other of these forces and the nation divides, is weakened from within, supported by attack from without and will not last long unless the State transforms into a fascist entity, unquestioned and unquestionable, in the manner of a monotheistic creed.

I presume that by 'diversive' you mean 'divisive', and I presume that by 'monotheistic creed' you don't mean something like Judaism, Christianity or Islam, but a unifying ideology. And I presume that by 'fascist' you mean illiberal.

Assuming these things, then you're basically just outlining Marx's theory of the state - that it serves the interests of the economically dominant class at any given time. If a given society is divided into mutually antagonistic classes (as all capitalist societies are), then the state will serve the interests of the dominant class (the bourgeoisie) at the expense of the subordinate classes unless or until the bourgeoisie is displaced from its dominant position by losing, or being sufficiently weakened by, the class struggle, in which case the state will switch to serving the interests of the newly dominant class at the expense of the newly subordinate classes. This is basically what happened in Russia post-1917 and in China post-1949. You seem to have an interest in maintaining a liberal state apparatus which acts as a mediator for any internal conflicts within society and which therefore rises above the class struggle in order to mediate it. I would suggest that such a role for the state in a capitalist society is impossible, since any state apparatus must serve the economic and political interests of the dominant class if it hopes to survive. In other words, it must choose sides, otherwise the state will itself become a battleground as the different classes struggle to gain possession of it. Russia from February to October of 1917 is a good example of this state of affairs.

[Dandelion]

What 'Social Contract'? I don't recall signing a social contract. Do you need to have two witnesses or just a notary?

The whole concept of a 'social contract' is, in fact, a metaphor. Factually and legally speaking, there is no such thing. And even its usefulness as a metaphor is questionable.


I presume that by 'diversive' you mean 'divisive', and I presume that by 'monotheistic creed' you don't mean something like Judaism, Christianity or Islam, but a unifying ideology. And I presume that by 'fascist' you mean illiberal.

Assuming these things, then you're basically just outlining Marx's theory of the state - that it serves the interests of the economically dominant class at any given time. If a given society is divided into mutually antagonistic classes (as all capitalist societies are), then the state will serve the interests of the dominant class (the bourgeoisie) at the expense of the subordinate classes unless or until the bourgeoisie is displaced from its dominant position by losing, or being sufficiently weakened by, the class struggle, in which case the state will switch to serving the interests of the newly dominant class at the expense of the newly subordinate classes. This is basically what happened in Russia post-1917 and in China post-1949. You seem to have an interest in maintaining a liberal state apparatus which acts as a mediator for any internal conflicts within society and which therefore rises above the class struggle in order to mediate it. I would suggest that such a role for the state in a capitalist society is impossible, since any state apparatus must serve the economic and political interests of the dominant class if it hopes to survive. In other words, it must choose sides, otherwise the state will itself become a battleground as the different classes struggle to gain possession of it. Russia from February to October of 1917 is a good example of this state of affairs.

By "social contract" I mean a constitution in which the people have their rights and justice system enshrined in law. If a politician breaks this contract, he contravenes that contract with the people to uphold their constitution. And he or she must therefore go. A refusal to go under these circumstances should legitimize a people's revolt.

I'm not into isms, by the way, so Marx and The Enlightenment, Fascism, Nazism, theocracy, monarchy, etc have no part of my individual opinions which are based on my interpretation of justice, populations that cohere around some common ideal or culture. My opinions are based on the rationale of the common good based in cooperative relations, good defences, even better fences and a population able to direct its own destiny without the interference from religion, from tinpot dictators or from incredibly wealthy, and often supremely unintelligent, upstarts who can buy their way to glory.

By "diversive" (admit I have invented a term) I mean a combination of divisional and diversionary circumstances that result in a fragmentation of group structure that cannot sustain separate groups in one whole. That cannot sustain a kind of national Gestalt, if you like. The whole becomes less than the sum of its part and begins to reduce into hostile groups that vie for Big Daddy support from opportunistic politicos. That is a recipe for disaster in any system, even in ethnic tribal groups. Once the whole fragments or the centre cannot hold, etc the nation implodes. This creates the chinks in its armour for the invasion of ideas, aggressors and investors (who often pose as rescue Knights) that will alter the entire cultural and political landscape of what was before injustice, or fascism, rose into prominence and threatened the order in paradise.

The ideal of order in paradise is a two edged sword. It requires an authority to keep things blissful on one hand and it requires obedient acolytes on the other. One then achieves Shangri-la or the fate of the Eloi. Humans have to become competent in their choices and aspirations in order to avoid both false paradises and create instead workable communities and nations within basic groupings beneath the umbrella of the species. They also need to pay special attention to the destructive aspects of civilization on the planet's ecology or any hopes of defeating entropy will be smashed. Entropy is a natural result of existence in our world. We try to ward it off by maintenance and discipline and dedication to various upkeep regimens, etc. (We have lost the essential skills of doing this). We live and strive to make ourselves less threatened by entropy but we all eventually grow old and die and so we do all this to hand over the torches of our endeavour to the generations that follow on. (Provided we haven't ruined the system they need to survive in before then.)

Break those chains and you may as well kiss your arse goodbye because once you've stuffed your chances you almost never get any more chances without sliding all the way down a snake and starting on the first rung of yet another ladder.

This should be taught to young people from an early age so that they will become aware of the peril of ideology and religion in exremis and the basic need for common sense responses to experience and knowledge gained from the experiences of others. That breeds the kind of wisdom that was so favoured by the human ancients and that has become outdated by modern generations and is now practically being dumped. I believe without any shred of doubt that this foolish and arrogant action will result in implosion of human civilization across a huge swath of earth's millions and dark times will ensue for those who thought it was clever to be ignorant. Ignorance is the new badge of political aggro among an alarming number of cheeky fools. It has worried me for some time but as they are also incredibly abusive I have stopped trying to point out their folly and am presently simply observing them pour themselves and their children down the drain of their own idiot hubris.