I find that there remains a lot of confusion over the nature of the state in these forums, which is surprising considering how everyone seems to be opposed to its existence. I will thus attempt to give a description of the state system, how and why it works, and what to do about it.
The first thing to know about the state is that it is a modern institution which has evolved out of absolutist monarchy. As the kings of Europe grew to acquire bigger and greater domains, their ability to control what took place in these domains weakened in proportion. The traditional solution to this problem of scale was creating fiefdoms, but doing so meant giving up some power to another lord, and the lords' combined power could easily exceed that of the king. The solution the first statesmen came up with was the creation of the bureaucratic system. Here I quote Mises:
In what does the position of such a provincial governor differ from that of the manager of a business branch? The manager of the whole concern hands over an aggregate to the newly appointed branch manager and gives him one directive only: Make profits. This order, the observance of which is continuously checked by the accounts, is sufficient to make the branch a subservient part of the whole concern and to give to its manager’s action the direction aimed at by the central manager. But if the despot, for whom his own arbitrary decision is the only principle of government, appoints a governor and says to him: “Be my deputy in this province,” he makes the deputy’s arbitrariness supreme in this province. He renounces, at least temporarily, his own power to the benefit of the governor.
In order to avoid this outcome the king tries to limit the governor’s powers by issuing directives and instructions. Codes, decrees, and statutes tell the governors of the provinces and their subordinates what to do if such and such a problem arises. Their free discretion is now limited; their first duty is now to comply with the regulations. It is true that their arbitrariness is now restricted in so far as the regulations must be applied. But at the same time the whole character of their management changes. They are no longer eager to deal with each case to the best of their abilities; they are no longer anxious to find the most appropriate solution for every problem. Their main concern is to comply with the rules and regulations, no matter whether they are reasonable or contrary to what was intended. The first virtue of an administrator is to abide by the codes and decrees. He becomes a bureaucrat.
http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy/section2.asp
With such a system, the king sends out agents to execute his power without having to give any of it up, or so he thinks. The state is the system of agents who follow rules of administration laid out by the king or his government in order to exercise power over the kingdom. The power of the king, which was something limited in scope by the necessity of being directly commanded by the king, now becomes indirect, a result of rules defined by the king. The scope of the king's indirect power is unlimited.
As the state system grows more mature it becomes an institution independent of the king itself. Kings war with each other over territory, and newly conquered territory comes with its own fully-functioning state apparatus. Reordering this new territory is as simple as laying down new rules for bureaucrats and perhaps replacing a few high-level functionaries. These changes transfer the legitimacy of power from the kings to the state itself. Then something unexpected happens: the coup d'état.
Either by exploiting loopholes in the system of rules or simply cheating on them, an alternative government manages to push out the king's government at the commands of the state. This has been called a revolution, however the revolution is only at the level of government. The state still exists, still applies the rules it has been told to apply and nothing has changed for most of the people until the new government can muster enough power to change the rules the state follows.
The permanence of the state can result in unusual situations such as that of Belgium where recently, although the country had no government, the state continued ruling the country without interruption. In a pre-state society the disappearance of government would have plunged the country into anarchy, but the state in Belgium kept its power intact. The situation of Iraq shows the opposite happening, with the state destroyed by an invading army that quickly established a new government only to find this government impotent to act upon the country without a state apparatus already in control.
There is an even more sinister form of state evolving, I fear, out of the European Union, which is to say a multi-government state. The EU bureacracy follows rules set up by the treaties signed by all members of the Union, but it is unaccountable in-between the treaties. Should the state apparatus fail catastrophically, there is no government powerful enough to steer it.
I think the best course of action for us is the constitution of an alternative government, a shadow government in the sense of the governments-in-exile of WWII, that could have sufficient organization to step in and start commanding the state in a crisis, even if only to dissolve it in an orderly manner. This alternative government would have to meet all the standards of freedom of choice in dispute resolution and exchange, but it must be able to issue new commands for the state to interpret. Such an alternative government would be seen as a real, viable alternative by the public and would be more likely to support a coup d'état than to elect this government in elections which, we all know, are rigged by the previous winners.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I GOT IT. The US needs a KING. How about a non born like myself??? hmmmmmmmm......... I see.
The first thing to know about the state is that it is a modern institution which has evolved out of absolutist monarchy.
This is patently false, considering that absolutist monarchy is a form of state and states have existed in varying form for thousands of years. I think you're confusing the rise of modern democracy with "the state" as such. The state is not a specifically modern institution, if anything is it archaic.
As the kings of Europe grew to acquire bigger and greater domains, their ability to control what took place in these domains weakened in proportion.
It's kings we're talking about here. These already were states, and you're just explaining the process in which they expand their territorial dominion.
The king's power is illegitimate to begin with, and you're merely describing the process by which this initially illegitimate power is expanded to more than just the king.
For god's sakes, prior to this situation, the king IS the state! There is no legitimacy in either scenario.
Brainpolice:It's kings we're talking about here. These already were states, and you're just explaining the process in which they expand their territorial dominion.
They were not states, they were kings. Those are two different things. If you ever want to understand the world, you have to be able to make out the difference and don't allow your prejudices to cloud your analysis.
I think it depends on wether you require states to have a life of their own to qualify as true states or is a monpoly on violence sufficient.Well written otherwise stranger. Though I do not know if I agree with the last paragraph. Maybe it would be easier with a practical illustration.
Brainpolice: The first thing to know about the state is that it is a modern institution which has evolved out of absolutist monarchy. This is patently false, considering that absolutist monarchy is a form of state and states have existed in varying form for thousands of years. I think you're confusing the rise of modern democracy with "the state" as such. The state is not a specifically modern institution, if anything is it archaic.
He essentially has it right with respect to Europe. Absolute monarchy arose in Europe after Westphalia. Perhaps we are not in agreement on definitions? The two defining characteristics of the "modern state" are that it is vast and beyond human scale, and that it is immortal. Such an administrative system couldn't exist in Europe until the acceptance of the notion of sovereignty - the right to act as final judge in all disputes. The monarchs created the vast bureaucratic infrastructure we call the modern state after the demise of the church as a political competitor, and then turned the state against their other competition: the aristocracy, the guilds, the towns, etc.
Democracy was a weapon used primarily by the monarchs against the aristocracy. And it wasn't just coincidental with the rise of the modern state. It was essential in order to portray the state as a representative of the people at large. Of course, it's also the weapon that the state eventually turned against the monarchs.
Marko:I think it depends on wether you require states to have a life of their own to qualify as true states or is a monpoly on violence sufficient.
It's neither. What defines a state is its bureaucratic rule structure, which is what makes possible weird events like a coup d'état.
The mafia, for exemple, has a life of its own and a monopoly on violence, but it is not bureaucratic. It is not possible to start manipulating the mafia the way a state can be manipulated.
DBratton: Democracy was a weapon used primarily by the monarchs against the aristocracy.
Democracy was a weapon used primarily by the monarchs against the aristocracy.
Stranger: Marko:I think it depends on wether you require states to have a life of their own to qualify as true states or is a monpoly on violence sufficient. It's neither. What defines a state is its bureaucratic rule structure, which is what makes possible weird events like a coup d'état. The mafia, for exemple, has a life of its own and a monopoly on violence, but it is not bureaucratic. It is not possible to start manipulating the mafia the way a state can be manipulated.
In what sense does a mafia have a life of its own? I see mafia as just a set of relations between certain people. Somebody paying racket sees himself a extorted by people with this and this name. They do not see themselves as paying racket to something abstract that exists independently of people working for and forming it right now.
Marko: In what sense does a mafia have a life of its own? I see mafia as just a set of relations between certain people. Somebody paying racket sees himself a extorted by people with this and this name. They do not see themselves as paying racket to something abstract that exists independently of people working for and forming it right now.
If you arrest or kill a mafia don, or captain or any other individual, the organization as a whole continues to function without difficulty. Debts continue being collected and product continues to be smuggled by the replacement.
Stranger:They were not states, they were kings. Those are two different things. If you ever want to understand the world, you have to be able to make out the difference and don't allow your prejudices to cloud your analysis.
I get it. And well written. I learned something this afternoon.
Marko: DBratton: Democracy was a weapon used primarily by the monarchs against the aristocracy. That is not true. Stranger has the right of it. Against the aristocracy monarchs used buerocracy.
That is not true. Stranger has the right of it. Against the aristocracy monarchs used buerocracy.
The authority of the bureaucracy had to be justified somehow. Remember in most of Europe the titles of the aristocracy were as good as the king's. Also, the people who staffed the bureaucracy were usually men of low birth whose position depended entirely on their office. As Lord Acton puts it: "The rise of democracy with the help of absolute monarchy is the one constant theme in the history of France."
One of Don Livingston's lectures covers this topic specifically. See The Rise of the Nation State (try about 00:36.00).
Stranger: If you arrest or kill a mafia don, or captain or any other individual, the organization as a whole continues to function without difficulty. Debts continue being collected and product continues to be smuggled by the replacement.
DBratton: The authority of the bureaucracy had to be justified somehow. Remember in most of Europe the titles of the aristocracy were as good as the king's. Also, the people who staffed the bureaucracy were usually men of low birth whose position depended entirely on their office. As Lord Acton puts it: "The rise of democracy with the help of absolute monarchy is the one constant theme in the history of France."
Authority of the buerocrats was sufficiently justified by the fact they were carrying out king`s law. And anyhow it was not a matter of justifications. It was a matter of power. Previously the king had been reliant on the feudal lords to provide him with an army. But now that the king was avash with money he was perfectly able to raise mercenary armies of his own. Therefore he could centralise the state because he did not need to fear aristocratic revolts. The titles of aristocracy were perfectly valid and they remained perfectly valid. The king did not evict anyone from their possesions, the dukes remained dukes. Infact the kings in this period made serfdom even harsher and therefore increased economic privileges of the aristocracy at the expense of the serfs albeit the aristocracy had to relinquish some of its judicial authority at the same time (king was awash in money so he was happy to trade monetary concessions for concessions of power). Higher buerocratic positions were always staffed by aristocracy, esspecialy the military posts. In this time developed a spirit of "state service" among the nobles. There was social pressure among nobility to send as many sons into state service as possible.
To repeat, this was the era when serfdom was the harshest in its whole history and the serf was in his worst position ever and somehow among all of this you are seeing democracy?
Marko:Higher buerocratic positions were always staffed by aristocracy, esspecialy the military posts. In this time developed a spirit of "state service" among the nobles. There was social pressure among nobility to send as many sons into state service as possible.
But aristocrats did not become clerks and scribblers. High offices reserved for the aristocracy not withstanding, the monarchs used mainly men of low birth and low estate to staff the bureaucracies. Doing so filled the bureaucracies with men whose first loyalty was to the state and to the king as its head. This was also true to varying degrees in the some of the European military establishments. In the English navy for instance, beginning with the Stewart monarchy a noble title could get you an Admiral's rank, but it could not get you command of a ship.
Marko:To repeat, this was the era when serfdom was the harshest in its whole history and the serf was in his worst position ever and somehow among all of this you are seeing democracy?
It depends on how you define democracy (we could have a whole thread on that). I don't see people voting if that's what you thought I meant. But the king and his bureaucracy begin to speak on behalf of the whole people, and in the wake of the French revolution the state begins to claim to actually be the people.
DBratton: But aristocrats did not become clerks and scribblers. High offices reserved for the aristocracy not withstanding, the monarchs used mainly men of low birth and low estate to staff the bureaucracies. Doing so filled the bureaucracies with men whose first loyalty was to the state and to the king as its head. This was also true to varying degrees in the some of the European military establishments. In the English navy for instance, beginning with the Stewart monarchy a noble title could get you an Admiral's rank, but it could not get you command of a ship.
England was not absolutist. Nobles were not scribblers, but commoners were not chancellors and lords of treasury. It wasn`t a meritocracy, but yes I see what you are trying to say. There were more roads open for free commoners now than there had been before thanks to the road of state service.
DBratton: It depends on how you define democracy (we could have a whole thread on that). I don't see people voting if that's what you thought I meant. But the king and his bureaucracy begin to speak on behalf of the whole people, and in the wake of the French revolution the state begins to claim to actually be the people.
Marko:...but yes I see what you are trying to say. There were more roads open for free commoners now than there had been before thanks to the road of state service.
Actually the point I was trying to make was that these commoners formed a cadre loyal to the state, which the king used to diminish the power of the aristocracy. And though the state may not have been a meritocracy it was an institution which, by its nature, favored expertise over noble status. Also, coopting the nobility into the bureaucracy served over time to further diminished the authority they had formerly been able to claim by virtue of birth status. Chancellors and lords of the treasury could command dukes and earls within the sphere of there offices.
Stranger:There is an even more sinister form of state evolving, I fear, out of the European Union, which is to say a multi-government state. The EU bureacracy follows rules set up by the treaties signed by all members of the Union, but it is unaccountable in-between the treaties. Should the state apparatus fail catastrophically, there is no government powerful enough to steer it.
Could you explain that further? I'm not sure what you mean with the last sentence.
Great post.
Peace
Enough of this. Good riddance.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Stranger: Brainpolice:It's kings we're talking about here. These already were states, and you're just explaining the process in which they expand their territorial dominion. They were not states, they were kings. Those are two different things. If you ever want to understand the world, you have to be able to make out the difference and don't allow your prejudices to cloud your analysis.
Anarchism means "no rulers". A king is an individual ruler, and a kingdom is the state of such a ruler. It's simple. Monarchy is a form of state. There are no kings in anarchism. This is very rudimentary.
DBratton: Brainpolice: The first thing to know about the state is that it is a modern institution which has evolved out of absolutist monarchy. This is patently false, considering that absolutist monarchy is a form of state and states have existed in varying form for thousands of years. I think you're confusing the rise of modern democracy with "the state" as such. The state is not a specifically modern institution, if anything is it archaic. He essentially has it right with respect to Europe. Absolute monarchy arose in Europe after Westphalia. Perhaps we are not in agreement on definitions? The two defining characteristics of the "modern state" are that it is vast and beyond human scale, and that it is immortal. Such an administrative system couldn't exist in Europe until the acceptance of the notion of sovereignty - the right to act as final judge in all disputes. The monarchs created the vast bureaucratic infrastructure we call the modern state after the demise of the church as a political competitor, and then turned the state against their other competition: the aristocracy, the guilds, the towns, etc. Democracy was a weapon used primarily by the monarchs against the aristocracy. And it wasn't just coincidental with the rise of the modern state. It was essential in order to portray the state as a representative of the people at large. Of course, it's also the weapon that the state eventually turned against the monarchs.
Once again, you're talking about "the modern state", not "the state" as such. "The state" as such has existed in many forms for thousands of years, and most certainly was not non-existant in Europe throughout most of its history and in most of its populated regions. I think there is some obfuscation going on here in the attempt to deny that medieval Europe was largely statist.
Then you're basically denying the libertarian (and Weberian) definition of the state in the attempt to legitimize fuedal monarchy. A monopoly on violence is a state, wether it's monarchal or not.
Brainpolice:Anarchism means "no rulers". A king is an individual ruler, and a kingdom is the state of such a ruler. It's simple. Monarchy is a form of state. There are no kings in anarchism. This is very rudimentary.
Yes and no. Your statement is correct as written. But from his OP it looks to me that when Stranger uses the term "state" what is actually being described is specifically the modern state (think Hobbes), which is a special case, and a recent phenomenon.
Brainpolice:Once again, you're talking about "the modern state", not "the state" as such
That's because the modern state is what the original post is all about, though the poster only says "state".
Brainpolice:"The state" as such has existed in many forms for thousands of years, and most certainly was not non-existant in Europe throughout most of its history and in most of its populated regions.
But you will agree the modern state evolved during the rule of and with the aid of the absolute monarch?
Brainpolice:I think there is some obfuscation going on here in the attempt to deny that medieval Europe was largely statist.
No. You just got tripped up by the use of the word state where modern state was really meant.
Brainpolice: Anarchism means "no rulers". A king is an individual ruler, and a kingdom is the state of such a ruler. It's simple. Monarchy is a form of state. There are no kings in anarchism. This is very rudimentary.
You continue to astonish me with your attempts to demonstrate your ideological purity by making completely off-topic comments.
Now go away, we don't care what you think.
JonBostwick: Stranger:There is an even more sinister form of state evolving, I fear, out of the European Union, which is to say a multi-government state. The EU bureacracy follows rules set up by the treaties signed by all members of the Union, but it is unaccountable in-between the treaties. Should the state apparatus fail catastrophically, there is no government powerful enough to steer it. Could you explain that further? I'm not sure what you mean with the last sentence. Great post.
Think of the ECB. In this case, the bank's orders are to contain inflation, and the pleas of individual governments to expand credit are ignored. Bureaucratic function is something of a protection.
Suppose the EU were to create a "security intervention force", a permanent military force capable of intervening in border conflicts. There would be no clear civilian command for this military force, and it would be required to intervene as per its rules of operations without the member governments being able to influence it. It could then fight wars without any form of restraint or conscientiousness simply by claiming that it is following orders, and possibly even overthrow governments in the process.
Brainpolice:Once again, you're talking about "the modern state", not "the state" as such. "The state" as such has existed in many forms for thousands of years, and most certainly was not non-existant in Europe throughout most of its history and in most of its populated regions. I think there is some obfuscation going on here in the attempt to deny that medieval Europe was largely statist.
If I were to eject you from your house through force and then allow you to continue living there for a fee, do I become a state?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
DBratton: Brainpolice:Anarchism means "no rulers". A king is an individual ruler, and a kingdom is the state of such a ruler. It's simple. Monarchy is a form of state. There are no kings in anarchism. This is very rudimentary. Yes and no. Your statement is correct as written. But from his OP it looks to me that when Stranger uses the term "state" what is actually being described is specifically the modern state (think Hobbes), which is a special case, and a recent phenomenon.
Yes, but he is speaking of the pre-modern state as if it isn't still a state, when it is. It appears that what's really describing is the process by which what already is a state becomes more bureaucratic, while implying that it was a state before it became ultra-bureaucratic.
Stranger: Brainpolice: Anarchism means "no rulers". A king is an individual ruler, and a kingdom is the state of such a ruler. It's simple. Monarchy is a form of state. There are no kings in anarchism. This is very rudimentary. You continue to astonish me with your attempts to demonstrate your ideological purity by making completely off-topic comments. Now go away, we don't care what you think.
That's rude. I think my concerns have merit, since you appear to be making apologetics for non-modern states.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Once again, you're talking about "the modern state", not "the state" as such. "The state" as such has existed in many forms for thousands of years, and most certainly was not non-existant in Europe throughout most of its history and in most of its populated regions. I think there is some obfuscation going on here in the attempt to deny that medieval Europe was largely statist. If I were to eject you from your house through force and then allow you to continue living there for a fee, do I become a state?
Considering that it was my house to begin with, you certainly would be functioning as a coercer or criminal, to say the least. If this is institutionalized as a monopoly on such force, then yes, you become a state according to any libertarian or weberian definition of a state.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Once again, you're talking about "the modern state", not "the state" as such. "The state" as such has existed in many forms for thousands of years, and most certainly was not non-existant in Europe throughout most of its history and in most of its populated regions. I think there is some obfuscation going on here in the attempt to deny that medieval Europe was largely statist. If I were to eject you from your house through force and then allow you to continue living there for a fee, do I become a state? Considering that it was my house to begin with, you certainly would be functioning as a coercer or criminal, to say the least. If this is institutionalized as a monopoly on such force, then yes, you become a state according to any libertarian or weberian definition of a state.
I become a monopoly on force, over the area of your house. So would I be a state, yes or no?
Juan:L'Etat c'est moi
That statement was was wrong when L14 made it though. His administration was far beyond any sort of scale for which control or even knowledge by a single man was possible. Must've been a pretty nice ego trip though.
Juan:I also like this one : Qu'ils mangent de la brioche. It's puzzling that a monarchy like the French, despite the inherent farsightedness and virtues of monarchy actually ended pretty badly because the rulers were so inept that they couldn't pay their bills...
Many rulers have been unable to pay their bills. Revolutions happen when the ruling class lose faith in their own right to rule. The French Revolution happened because the nobility and the clergy voted with the third estate against their own interests. If you look at the various Russian revolutions (1905, 1917, 1991) you will see similar self rejections on the part of the ruling classes.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Once again, you're talking about "the modern state", not "the state" as such. "The state" as such has existed in many forms for thousands of years, and most certainly was not non-existant in Europe throughout most of its history and in most of its populated regions. I think there is some obfuscation going on here in the attempt to deny that medieval Europe was largely statist. If I were to eject you from your house through force and then allow you to continue living there for a fee, do I become a state? Considering that it was my house to begin with, you certainly would be functioning as a coercer or criminal, to say the least. If this is institutionalized as a monopoly on such force, then yes, you become a state according to any libertarian or weberian definition of a state. I become a monopoly on force, over the area of your house. So would I be a state, yes or no?
The fundamental issue in the scenario is that you're a theif to begin with, and to add insult to injury you then have the audacity to charge me fees for using the property that you stole from me to begin with. Are you trying to justify this scenario? Because that's sort of exactly what states do, steal people's land and property and then tax them to live on the land and use the property that was theirs to begin with. When done on such a small scale, we recognize this scenario as "crime". When done on a larger scale, this is a "state". The formation of a "state" involves precisely the scenario you're spelling out, only on a larger scale then just one person's home. So, logically, yes, you are justifying the pretext to a state if you think this scenario is proper.
Brainpolice:That's rude. I think my concerns have merit, since you appear to be making apologetics for non-modern states.
That's only your own personal hallucination. Now I reinvite you to get out.
Stranger: Brainpolice:That's rude. I think my concerns have merit, since you appear to be making apologetics for non-modern states. That's only your own personal hallucination. Now I reinvite you to get out.
I'm sorry that you're not able to take constructive criticism.
Brainpolice: I'm sorry that you're not able to take constructive criticism.
To do that, criticism must be provided. All you do is express your delusions. You're wasting our time. Get out.
Stranger: Brainpolice: I'm sorry that you're not able to take constructive criticism. To do that, criticism must be provided. All you do is express your delusions. You're wasting our time. Get out.
Criticism has been provided, you're simply choosing to deliberately ignore it and be rude.
Brainpolice: Criticism has been provided, you're simply choosing to deliberately ignore it and be rude.
Only through the thin film of your usual tactics of creating strawmen and disrupting thread after thread with the same antagonistic foolishness.
Please stop trolling BP. It is getting tiresome when people insist upon sidetracking every discussion, without contributing anything except strawmen and semantic arguments.
DBratton:That statement was was wrong when L14 made it though.