Why and should the state exist?

[fakename]

to southern cross:

you should also look up other non-state (as we know it) societies that worked -african kingdoms, pre-sumerian civilizations, medieval iceland/ireland, also look into the so-called wild west which was actually more orderly than the tame eastern seaboard.

 

[Southern_Cross]

So this implies that to disapprove of the state at all times is not a catholic position?

May I suggest that there is a difference between moral disapproval and active resistance. We, as Catholics are perfectly entitled to oppose compulsory government in all its forms at all times. I believe the problem lies when this belief leads us to directly oppose authority, especially with force.

you should also look up other non-state (as we know it) societies that worked -african kingdoms, pre-sumerian civilizations, medieval iceland/ireland, also look into the so-called wild west which was actually more orderly than the tame eastern seaboard.

Oh yeah, absolutely! I was just trying to think of examples that were directly opposed to the modern concept of the “nation state”. But as you say they’re all great examples of how Man can advance Himself through cooperation rather than coercion.

BTW Message me if you ever want to talk more about the subject.

 

[Lujack]

You quote conditions in the Spanish Civil War a great deal. But if human conditions were so improved due to those social changes, why was the kingdom brought back for good?

To be fair here, and I have my own argument against it, the monarchy replaced Franco. The conditions he’s talking about were in the Republican areas in the country. That stuff went away because they failed to win the war (although I doubt they would have survived anyway, because a victorious Republican government would have had ambitions of its own).

 

[Lujack]

1. police kill people who call 911 for their services -they would do this much less in a private property order where they had more liability for their actions

Did you just say that the police kill people who call 911?

1. Apriori one can know that state-provided services are going to be subpar compared to privatly provided ones so it is easiest to just end all police departments now.

No, you can’t know that a priori. That’s not the way arguments work.

3.Again one can know that private contractors would be an improvement because they rely on customer favor and favor with insurance companies, etc. so that they would have incentives to cut costs (aka not accidently kill people or get off easy for drunk driving,etc.).

What are you talking about? You haven’t even made an argument here, just restated the same a priori assumption.

1. All things that need funds need to profit and if one can make lots of money selling a service for a trillion dollars one can make even more money by selling a service for 1 dollar since both the trillionaire and the poor guy could both afford such a service.

The all-knowing and all-holy free market would prevent this. How could a security firm cover operating expenses by charging so little?

But the question is “is the state something that the church approves of because the holy spirit has guided it to this knowledge or is it merely an opinion that is open to arguement?”

The question is actually “Why and should the state exist?”. That is the title of the thread.

 

[Lujack]

We’re not talking about Government, we’re talking about the state,the two are not synonymous As I’ve said earlier government is necessary, the nation state is not. There are fairer more democratic ways to govern.

Okay, fair enough. Government conducted on a more local level is generally better, that’s something I can agree with. However, I think it would be necessary for an overarching, federal entity to keep them from tearing each other to pieces. How do large cities operate under this system? What if the group at the head of the Colorado River decides they want to turn off Las Vegas’s water? With no group to regulate their deal, it seems like war would be the only result.

The same people who pay for them now through taxes. But to be honest with you i hate the idea of private security, it was really only said to be less offensive to those opposed to a more socialist model of law and order, one that has worked in numerous post revolutionary Anarchist societies.

That makes more sense. So things would basically be funded on what is today’s more municipal level?

A brief example… After the Spanish revolution, when direct democracy was established through labour councils a police force and court system was established that was directly accountable to the people;, with any judge or officer recallable by popular vole at any time.

That’s interesting, but how does this deal with the Athenian problem of the tyranny of the majority? If there is no provision to protect individual rights against even the will of the majority, how does a minority get by? Wouldn’t they merely be forced to leave, or to join the majority, or be oppressed? Also, it seems that when it comes to crucial issues of immediate defense, direct democracy would get a bit cumbersome And if we are hypothesizing a world where there are lots of small, independent regions like this, how do they negotiate with each other if everything needs to be approved by direct democracy, and anyone can be recalled at any time?

And to be fair, no “post-revolutionary anarchist society” has existed for all that long, as far as I know. We don’t know whether something like that could work over the long term. If we imagine the Tri-State Area has converted to this form of living, what prevents a more densely populated area from slowly growing until it gobbles everything up? It doesn’t seem like this could exist for all that long before something else replaced it.

 

[fakename]

Did you just say that the police kill people who call 911?

No, you can’t know that a priori. That’s not the way arguments work.

The question is actually “Why and should the state exist?”. That is the title of the thread.

1 just for your own good you should know that yes, sometimes the police have been known to kill, arrest, etc. people who call 911 in emergency situations (home break-ins, runaway teens,).

2 Well this is all my opinion but the real question is…

3 True but what I meant by the title was also what I wrote in the post you responded to. But you can respond to either question they are equal in my mind.

 

[Southern_Cross]

Okay, fair enough. Government conducted on a more local level is generally better, that’s something I can agree with. However, I think it would be necessary for an overarching, federal entity to keep them from tearing each other to pieces. How do large cities operate under this system?

Absolutely federation is critical to maintaining order in larger populations. The question is which style of federation? I am yet to be convinced that being a politician is a full time job. The only reason they have full time employment is to manage the web of bureaucracy that they themselves instituted to validate their existance.

What I propose (and this is only me, and it is one of infinite possibilities) is that when an issue does arise that requires federal governance, that a person or a group is drawn directly from the local area, one who does not make his business from being in power, and one that can be recalled at any time if he begins to act against the express wishes of the community.

That makes more sense. So things would basically be funded on what is today’s more municipal level?

That would be one possibility yes.

That’s interesting, but how does this deal with the Athenian problem of the tyranny of the majority? If there is no provision to protect individual rights against even the will of the majority, how does a minority get by? Wouldn’t they merely be forced to leave, or to join the majority, or be oppressed?

I think I’d have to ask you the same question. How is the minority protected under the current system? I’d have to ask why 75% of prisoners in the US are non white when they only represent 25% of the population?

It should also be noted that theories of anarchist law focus upon consensus, rather than majority. Certain laws will almost surely be agreed to by all citizens i.e. rape, murder and theft. Other government decisions like paying out corporations whenever there’s a crash may be more problematic. But majority rule need not only be a matter of simple majority, perhaps some form of double majority at least. Let’s not forgot that elections are generally very close, and only ever really represent a simple majority at best.

And to be fair, no “post-revolutionary anarchist society” has existed for all that long, as far as I know. We don’t know whether something like that could work over the long term. If we imagine the Tri-State Area has converted to this form of living, what prevents a more densely populated area from slowly growing until it gobbles everything up? It doesn’t seem like this could exist for all that long before something else replaced it.

Very true, but so to do empires rise and fall. As has been said stateless societies have only ever fallen to superior military force, not internal unrest. All I am saying is that we must be revolutionary in spirit, and do not accept the status quo at face value; that we take time to think of potential, and possibility.

 

[Lycorth]

The state should exist as a temporal guide and guard of the people, obedient to Catholic moral teaching and working ever in cooperation with the Church as well as obedient to its correction.

The best governments we had in the West were when temporal rulers were Catholic and obeyed the guidance and correction of a strong and vital Church. The Medieval era (particularly the High Middle Ages) boasts the best examples of this, and to which I refer those interested to Warren H. Carroll’s The History of Christendom series (*The Building of Christendom *and The Glory of Christendom, respectively) for more details. Only the Church has been able to provide the best check and balance against temporal rulers in history, and even then temporal rulers still get out of hand. As such, temporal politics will always be a difficult game at best, but we can improve the situation much.

Of course, this is also predicated on the Church returning to her old vigor and traditions, in order for her to be the most effective earthly shepherd, but that goes without saying.

 

[fakename]

again, is there any place where the church unequivocally says that the state -because it is the monopoly on force -should exist?

I’ve heard that it doesn’t have an official position but I want to hear both sides if there is one.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

again, is there any place where the church unequivocally says that the state -because it is the monopoly on force -should exist?

I’ve heard that it doesn’t have an official position but I want to hear both sides if there is one.

Fakename, Pope Benedict XVI had this to say on his visit to the USA:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND VISIT TO THE UNITED NATIONS
ORGANIZATION HEADQUARTERS

INTERVIEW OF THE HOLY FATHER BENEDICT XVI
DURING THE FLIGHT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Tuesday, 15 April 2008

The Holy Father: Of course, in Europe we cannot simply copy the United States: we have our own history. But we must all learn from one another. What I find fascinating in the United States is that they began with a positive concept of secularity, because this new people was composed of communities and individuals who had fled from the State Church and wanted to have a lay, a secular State that would give access and opportunities to all denominations, to all forms of religious practice. Thus, an intentionally secular new State was born; they were opposed to a State Church. But the State itself had to be secular precisely out of love for religion in its authenticity, which can only be lived freely. And thus, we find this situation of a State deliberately and decidedly secular but precisely through a religious will in order to give authenticity to religion. And we know that in studying America, Alexis de Toqueville noticed that secular institutions live with a de facto moral consensus that exists among the citizens. This seems to me to be a fundamental and positive model. It should be taken into account that in Europe in the meantime, over 200 years have passed with many developments. Today, there is also in the United States the attack of a new secularism, quite a different kind. Whereas, at first the problems concerned immigration, but later in the course of history the situation became complicated and therefore differentiated. But the foundation, the fundamental model also seems to me today to be worthy of being borne in mind in Europe.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080415_intervista-usa_en.html

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, it strikes me that the modern nation-state is a modern thing. So if you are thinking of the state in that sense, I don’t think it is a necessity. There was, not long ago, a time when it didn’t exist. There may be a time when it is supplanted by something else.

People have not always thought of themselves as citizens, much less as citizens of a particular nation, say France, or the US, or whatever. In some cases they thought of themselves as the property of other people, as under the protection/oweing service to particular individuals, as members by blood of a particular extended family or tribe…

I think that we can see a few things. One is that some of these relationships are natural, and others les so. Membership in a family or even tribe is really a natural relationship, and as such needs to be accommodated in some way within any other kind of political organization. The family always has a certain role, and what the Church might call certian innate rights.

Tribal and feudal systems are almost a kind of extention of the family model.

But family based political organizations can have real problems. Justice, for example, can be neglected - it is always my families interets are the most important. Clan warfare is notoriously bloody for this reason.

But we know that there is a sense that “all men are created equal” and that were are all meant to be part of the Body of Christ, and that Justice is one of God’s fundemental attributes. So these are things as Christians, and simply as rational beings, that we need to have a way of dealing with in our larger social structure.

That is the purpose of the state, as it is now, or in any other way it may evolve. Really, if the distinction Canadian should disappear for some reason, that is irrelevant if there is still justice. If the structures of the state are not serving justice, if the constitution, for example, is resulting in injustice, than it should be discarded. It is not a thing in itself which must be maintained at all costs - it is a tool that is only good insofar as it reflects what God is.

Nation states do have real problems as a concept. They are fairly good as trying to bring justice to their own citizens. But they are not so good at giving justice to others, which is what is demanded of us as members of a universal Church, and really by justice even understood apart from Christianity. In many cases they can actually encourage us to think that injustice to non-citizens is morally correct, since the job of the state is to look after citizens. Understood this way, the nation-state is only an extension of the clan. This view is not accepted by the CC though. So it seems perhaps we need to change our understanding of the nation-state to better deal with that problem, or perhaps let it evolve somehow.

Balancing the state, the individual, the family, and God, has always been difficult from the times such political structures first began to evolve. You can read something like the Eumenides, or Antigone, today, and see that the ancient Greeks were struggling with these questions just as we do. So I don’t expect that finding the best political system will ever seem obvious or easy. And since circumstances can change (say communications and transportation) what might work as a governing structure can change too.

 

[fakename]

well thank you all indeed, for your answers I feel that I now understand the proper beliefs in this regard.

 

[Lycorth]

Well-said, Bluegoat!

 

[CPA2]

What did Adam Smith have to say about the “invisible hand?” “An individual who intends only his own gain is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”

Adam Smith said that economic growth is the product of five things. Name them.

1. Private property
2. Free markets
3. Limited civil government
4. Accumulation of capital
5. An increase in the division of labor

What was Adam Smith’s key insight? Both parties to an exchange can benefit so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary.

What did Milton Friedman have to say about economic freedom and political freedom? “Economic freedom is a requirement for political freedom. Economic freedom enables people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction. Economic Freedom reduces the area over which political power is exercised.”

The difference between a command economy and a market economy is incentives.

According to Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, Government’s role is an umpire, not a participant.

Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson saw concentrated government power as a great danger to the ordinary man. Three documents that support this view.

1. Virginia Declaration of Rights – 1776
2. U.S. Bill of Rights – 1791
3. Separation of Powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial)

What did Milton Friedman have to say about the “invisible hand?” “An individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is led by an invisible hand to promote private interest, which was no part of his intention.”

What is the theory of Bureaucratic Displacement, as proposed by Dr. Max Gammon? “In a bureaucratic system an increase in expenditure will be matched by a fall in production. Such systems will act rather like ‘black holes’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of ‘emitted’ production.”

What is the role of prices?

1. Transmission of information
2. Incentives
3. Distribution of income and/or a rationing mechanism

Milton Friedman wrote his PhD dissertation at Columbia in the 1940’s on rent-seeking behavior. He refuted the constantly repeated mantra of rent-seeking behavior. Explain what “rent-seeking” behavior means. Rent-seeking behavior is the idea that government licensure of professions is necessary to protect the public. Milton Friedman’s works provide empirical evidence that licensure is nothing more than a mechanism used by members of a profession to raise the entry costs, and thus keep wages and profits artificially high. Rent-seeking behavior improves the welfare of someone at the expense of the welfare of someone else.

Over 70 percent of economists agree that four statements are correct. What are those four correct statements?

1. A ceiling on rents (rent control) reduces the quantity and quality of rental housing available.
2. Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare.
3. A minimum wage increases unemployment among the young and unskilled.
4. Inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon.

Approximately 70 percent of economists agree that two statements are not accurate. What are those two inaccurate statements?

1. The cause of the rise in gasoline prices that occurred in the wake of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is the monopoly power of the large oil companies.
2. Wage-price controls are a useful policy option in the control of inflation.

 

[CPA2]

Governments oppose three things: God, Guns and Gold. Why? All three limit the power of government.

 

[fakename]

wait a sec. Thomas Aquinas said that a just war can only be carried out by legitimate authorities. So a state has to be good in and of itself because without it, there is no such thing as a just war.

Or am I wrong?

 

[GEddie]

wait a sec. Thomas Aquinas said that a just war can only be carried out by legitimate authorities. So a state has to be good in and of itself because without it, there is no such thing as a just war.

Or am I wrong?

Are we to assume that waging War is the primary purpose of a state (in which case human life might conceivably be better off without them) or that justification for waging war is “good in and of itself?”

 

[Bluegoat]

wait a sec. Thomas Aquinas said that a just war can only be carried out by legitimate authorities. So a state has to be good in and of itself because without it, there is no such thing as a just war.

Or am I wrong?

The word state can be used in different ways. If you use it to indicate “legitimate authorities” it has almost no real meaning. A tribal system of social organization has legitimate authorities, but we wouldn’t usually call it a “state” and it is most certainly not a Nation-state in the modern sense.

Also - a just war is by its very nature a sign of imperfection. It isn’t really a good in itself so much as a somewhat-better-than-something-else. The best would be to have justice with no war. A way is always a sign of human failure, and even in a just war we can see from history that the failure is often on both sides, even if it is heavily weighted one way. All war is a result of the Fall.

 

[fakename]

Are we to assume that waging War is the primary purpose of a state (in which case human life might conceivably be better off without them) or that justification for waging war is “good in and of itself?”

From what aquinas this is implied: If there is going to be a just war then there must be a state.

But I think your idea is that: if there is a state then there is going to be war. Now I can take this in two senses either that the state can produce both just and unjust wars (which is contradictory) or that they produce unjust wars and just wars at different times. The latter then must be the right interpretation. But this statement is consistent with aquinas since it is possible for one moment to be just and the next moment be unjust.

So really the idea is that if there is going to be an unjust war at some other time then there is going to be a state.

So I guess maybe it is right to assume that waging war is the primary purpose of a state, inasmuch as this means that states can make mistakes on the matter of justice.

As for the second part of your question, I think what aquinas meant was again, if there is going to be a just war then there must be a state. So I guess that the state is valuable in and of itself because it alone can lead to a just war (though it also fights unjust ones).

 

[fakename]

The word state can be used in different ways. If you use it to indicate “legitimate authorities” it has almost no real meaning. A tribal system of social organization has legitimate authorities, but we wouldn’t usually call it a “state” and it is most certainly not a Nation-state in the modern sense.

Also - a just war is by its very nature a sign of imperfection. It isn’t really a good in itself so much as a somewhat-better-than-something-else. The best would be to have justice with no war. A way is always a sign of human failure, and even in a just war we can see from history that the failure is often on both sides, even if it is heavily weighted one way. All war is a result of the Fall.

So the word state can mean “any form or type of government”. But what counts as a government? Is the family a government? The condo association? The church? when does an organization become a government or state?