Is It Possible For The State To Exist

If it was impossible to take another persons property by threats or violent force?

Discuss.

Most people understand the concept of a collective and are willing to live in one without the need for these imaginary threats and being held at gunpoint examples of yours.

Originally posted by Whyhi
Most people understand the concept of a collective and are willing to live in one without the need for these imaginary threats and being held at gunpoint examples of yours.

so your answer is no.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43c1fd6cd0ec.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If it was impossible to take another persons property by threats or violent force?

Discuss.

you should clarify by saying "if it was impossible to [LEGALLY] take another person's property by threats or violent force [UNDER IMMUNITY OF THE LAW]

Anybody can take someone's property through threats or violent force, the law simply tries to prevent this, but when the law has the power to take property, it can then be abused. Government is like technology, when it falls into evil hands bad things happen.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If it was impossible to take another persons property by threats or violent force?

Discuss.

you should clarify by saying "if it was impossible to [LEGALLY] take another person's property by threats or violent force [UNDER IMMUNITY OF THE LAW]

Anybody can take someone's property through threats or violent force, the law simply tries to prevent this, but when the law has the power to take property, it can then be abused. Government is like technology, when it falls into evil hands bad things happen.

impossible

as in, it is literally impossible.

as in, it can not be done.

as in, there's just no way man.

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

en.wikipedia.org...

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.

The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled

Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.

The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone.

Of the Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right ~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

en.wikipedia.org...


I believe it is necessary to have a state regardless of any other arguments. Now the question then comes down to how far the state should be permitted to go in controlling or not controlling the lives of its citizens. I believe all people should either become self-reliant or interdependent rather than relying on the state or simply relying on others for their existence.

The Earth is given openly to all people and animals to make of it what they will. All of man wants to preserve and protect himself and his property above all else so any infringement upon his life or property is thus an infringement upon the human existence.

So with that point being made I DO believe that a state is necessary but only to maintain the human condition from falling into barbarism. A state has certain obligations to speak on behalf of the population of that nation and the power to the state should be granted by the citizens only and it should have zero self-representation of the will of the state. Establish a form of Classical republicanism with a strong Constitution which strictly limits the state and a form of direct democracy and partial representative democracy.

This way man can preserve and protect himself without violations from other people or from the state.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Most people understand the concept of paying taxes and what they're for. Looting implies stealing, taxes imply payments from the population to the government to support itself and it's endeavors, hopefully trying to make improvements and such.

Unless your moral contract can fix human nature I can't see everyone getting along too well when you begin to deconstruct government and order.

reply to post by Whyhi


Looting implies the use of force or threats of force to take an innocent man's property.

What one believes or what philosophical reasons are used to justify this are irrelevant.

Violent theft is immoral in all circumstances.

reply to post by mnemeth1


And taxes imply a payment to form a government so it can operate for the benefit of the collective. Nowhere does it mention you have to live on their land, you're free to object to the payments and leave if you wish, no violence needed.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

And taxes imply a payment to form a government so it can operate for the benefit of the collective. Nowhere does it mention you have to live on their land, you're free to object to the payments and leave if you wish, no violence needed.

I see

So if I don't give you my lunch money you'll beat me up, and if I don't like it I should change schools.
.
Sounds perfectly reasonable.

It also sounds like something a sociopath would say.

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

And taxes imply a payment to form a government so it can operate for the benefit of the collective. Nowhere does it mention you have to live on their land, you're free to object to the payments and leave if you wish, no violence needed.

Taxes are also required to be spent ONLY on things specified in the Constitution. When they cease being spent in that prescribed manner, the need to pay them becomes irrelevant.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Violent theft is immoral in all circumstances.

Thats your own personal version of morality, which many people (I dare to say majority) dont adhere to.

If the alternative is death or (possibility of) life-threatening situation, violent theft (if it does not endanger the victim or seriously limit his quality of life) is not only moral, it is immoral to not do it! Right to live is more important than right to property.

Originally posted by Maslo

If the alternative is death or (possibility of) life-threatening situation, violent theft (if it does not endanger the victim or seriously limit his quality of life) is not only moral, it is immoral to not do it! Right to live is more important than right to property.

I don't think you understand the things you are talking about.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Violent theft is immoral in all circumstances.

Thats your own personal version of morality, which many people (I dare to say majority) dont adhere to.

If the alternative is death or (possibility of) life-threatening situation, violent theft (if it does not endanger the victim or seriously limit his quality of life) is not only moral, it is immoral to not do it! Right to live is more important than right to property.

Since one can always work for a living, trade labor for food, or beg - I don't see the need to ever engage in violent theft.

Being in a situation where one has the ability to work but still choses to engage in theft can be classified as completely immoral at all times.

If a person is incapable of working, it stands to reason they would have a hell of a time trying to rob someone.

I'm willing to make an exception and say if a person is on the verge of death from starvation, they can't work, and they have absolutely no family to help them, that taking what they need to survive is excusable.

Of course, this encompasses about 0% of the US population.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Care to elaborate why do you think so?

There are 100 people on an island. They are sterile. No one else exists anywhere else. These people will live forever if left in anarchy. Also, most of them are happy but some are not....

40 of them have decided to hold elections and pick a leader who will tell them what to do. There is no need for a leader on this island, nevertheless the elections proceed. 26 of the 40 vote for a new leader. The leader is elected.

Does this leader now have the right to impose his will on the 60 nonvoters as well as those who voted?

Do the voters have a right to impose their will on the 60?

lets say you do away with the state of America. NO one in charge, just a bunch on individuals working for one another.

Are you going to be self sufficient or trade with other nations?
How will you defend America if another nation threatens your security?
Will you no longer defend the rights of other nations?
How will you react to global problems, such as climate change, cyber terrorism and global warming?

Just a few questions I need answering before I can consider giving up my state. I have more but these are quite important

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Hey Woodward,

Will you tell me what you think of my last post?

I'd like to get your take on my island thought experiment, if you don't mind.

An estate is pwned land.

Laws only exist that can and will be continuously enforced.

Freedoms only exist that can and will be continuously defended.

The only way to attempt to own and control land is to foolishly wage war with all life within it including your own people.

No. There is no way to live on an estate in non compliance with the law without being violently threatened in one way or another.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
There are 100 people on an island. They are sterile. No one else exists anywhere else. These people will live forever if left in anarchy. Also, most of them are happy but some are not....

40 of them have decided to hold elections and pick a leader who will tell them what to do. There is no need for a leader on this island, nevertheless the elections proceed. 26 of the 40 vote for a new leader. The leader is elected.

Does this leader now have the right to impose his will on the 60 nonvoters as well as those who voted?

Do the voters have a right to impose their will on the 60?

edit on 20-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

Of course he has the right to use violence against the other 60.

He's an elected official.

This gives him the right to take anyone's property using military hardware and paramilitary commandos.