First let us define what we mean by “state”. I would suggest that a state is a centralised governing authority with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a particular territorial area. In the modern world there exists only two forms of state, dictatorship and representative government (an elected dictatorship)I’ve searched everywhere on these forums and I still cannot find the answer. Is there any necessity for a catholic to believe in the state’s necessity qua catholicism?
In many debates in social justice the unstated premise is that it should but, should it?
but does the church say that there should be government or a monopoly on force?The answer is no. The Church holds no position on which form of government is acceptable…
Sure. Well what do we mean by vacuum? What services that the state no delivers or facilitates will need to replaced?How do you create participatory democracy without some mechanism of a state? And how do you plan to maintain a stateless vacuum?
The church has no official position. But humans being social creatures will always tend towards organisation. It is a matter of making governance as participatory as possible; for me this means the abolition of representative government.but does the church say that there should be government or a monopoly on force ?
Well that’s a sociological definition (I think it comes from Max Weber). And in this context the state legitimates itself. All it means is that the state claims to have the only real authority; the state of course can never have a true monopoly on violence, as any one of us is capable of committing an act of violence.And two, your definition included the word legitimate. But by what is the force monopoly legitimate? By the church or by reason?
The US has never won a war relying wholly on militia forces, however, so afaict your point is not made. I doubt the American concept of militia would hold up very long in a full onslaught by a fully equipped statist army.As far as defence goes the US militia system speaks for itself.
Hi thinker. I understand it’s hard to think outside of your own box. But as a Catholic I have immense confidence in the power of people to cooperate to achieve mutual benefits. I pity those who think so little of God’s masterpiece that they attribute such helpless and selfish qualities to the human race. May I suggest you research Spain during the Spanish Revolution for an insight into the tremendous capacity we have for selflessness and cooperation.I see this discussion as foolish. Are you and your neighbors going to hire a contractor to pave your street? Will every other road you use be a private turnpike? Will you buy all of your groceries from the farmer that grows them or through a coop with no regulation but your own ability to shop wisely? Will you buy your heart medicine the same way?
And what means of exchange will you use? privatly minted gold coins? barter?
The “state” does these things. If you don’t want the state then you don’t want the state to do these. It doesn’t work.
and the Church is wise. wiser than you have stated. She tells us:
1877 The vocation of humanity is to show forth the image of God and to be transformed into the image of the Father’s only Son. This vocation takes a personal form since each of us is called to enter into the divine beatitude; it also concerns the human community as a whole.
1879 The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren, man develops his potential; he thus responds to his vocation.2
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with your first two quotes, neither relate to the state.and
1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6
Keep in mind the continental army was not strictly a statist army either; it merely had a higher level of professionalism, organisation and discipline. When I was referring to a militia I meant its citizenry nature, not necessarily its level of training or capabilities, there is no reason why professional solders could not constitute at least part of a militia army, Switzerland being a prime example.The US has never won a war relying wholly on militia forces, however, so afaict your point is not made. I doubt the American concept of militia would hold up very long in a full onslaught by a fully equipped statist army.
What is a community organization that directs education, health care, and the public utilities but a government? Its government on a small scale, but government nonetheless.Sure. Well what do we mean by vacuum? What services that the state no delivers or facilitates will need to replaced?
Education, healthcare, public utilities etc, are all capable of existing without the state, either on a community, church or private level.
As someone else pointed out, the United States militia has never won a war; its performance in the Revolution was never all that good, and it was the Continentals who did the most effective fighting. In the War of 1812, the performance of the militia was an absolute disaster, and led to the burning of Washington.The main issue I think you are referring to is the maintenance of law and order and national defence. As far as defence goes the US militia system speaks for itself. In addition there have been numerous examples of a volunteer citizen military acting effectively without external control; the Spanish and Ukrainian anarchist forces come to mind.
Private security contractors? Who will pay for that? The contractors will be in the pocket of whoever pays them the most. A community protection group will be helpless against a well-equipped security firm paid for by some rich guy who wants to be the Duke of Anytown, and the militia isn’t equipped for this job. Not only that, you make no provision for a court system to determine who is innocent or guilty.As far as a police force I think many people will agree with me when i say that most police departments are highly ineffective. The same service could be provided by a private security contractor, community protection groups, or even the militia.
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.What is a community organization that directs education, health care, and the public utilities but a government? Its government on a small scale, but government nonetheless…
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.Private security contractors? Who will pay for that? The contractors will be in the pocket of whoever pays them the most. A community protection group will be helpless against a well-equipped security firm paid for by some rich guy who wants to be the Duke of Anytown, and the militia isn’t equipped for this job. Not only that, you make no provision for a court system to determine who is innocent or guilty.
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?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.
- Police departments are failing at their job.
- The solution is not to try to improve the police department, but to get rid of it entirely.
- Private contractors would be an improvement.
- Private contractors would not immediately fall into the pocket of the rich, ambitious, and unscrupulous.
Fakename, Obviously the desired form of life on this planet would be for the entire world to be entirely comprised of faithful Catholic and the Kingdom of God on earth. Lacking this possibility, the state does exist not by consent rather by human interactions of establishing order in societies. The Vatican states that the only form of government that is credible is one that promotes charity toward it’s constituents. We are not required to obey unjust laws or leaders in the Catholic sense, we are only required to obey just laws and just leaders. I wish that they were all Catholic in Jesus Holy Name.I’ve searched everywhere on these forums and I still cannot find the answer. Is there any necessity for a catholic to believe in the state’s necessity qua catholicism?
In many debates in social justice the unstated premise is that it should but, should it?
Fakename, The state is only good if it can prove that it’s intentions are charitable toward it’s constituents. If the intention is not charitable then the state has no credibility and should be treated as ignoble.but again, is the state good because the church can prove it performs certain functions that are good or is it good because there is something about it which is inherently moral.
In order to prove the state is good in the former sense one would need to prove it has certain functions which is something that seems outside of the church’s essential purposes since poli sci is not a matter of faith and morals.
But in the latter sense it would have to be that the state by itself is something that in essence, concerns faith and morals.
Or something like that…
So this implies that to disapprove of the state at all times is not a catholic position?Fakename, The state is only good if it can prove that it’s intentions are charitable toward it’s constituents. If the intention is not charitable then the state has no credibility and should be treated as ignoble.
The fact that the Luftwaffe obliterated any fascist resistance in Spain might have something to do with it.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?