And for my next trick
TA DA!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:The government is the state.
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."
Juan: Laughing Man:The government is the state. Indeed. Just looking at the dictionary shows that's the case. But it seems people love to redefine words. Or maybe Jon can post some references to validate his and Stranger's peculiar usage of the terms ?
No I will just let this topic be swept up in the dustbin of history. Rothbard trumps all.
/debate
freeradical:1. There is a role for government and that role is to protect property rights.
No sir...
Let me explain, for the scenario lets examine Mr. A and Mr. B
Mr. A lives on the outskirts of an anarchist society, Mr. B lives on the interior...
Mr. A has a large peice of land, so he hires a protection force, to keep an eye for intrutions from a neighboring community with a government, he develops a plan in case of invasion and uses resources adequate to protect his property...
Mr, B has a smaller piece of land, he can see all corners from his home, he pays a protection agency to drive by once in a while, but that is all, the rest of his property defence is firearms ownership and training...
freeradical:The government should engage in no activity which is not directly related to the purpose stated above.
But the government will use the purpose stated above to justify any activity...
freeradical:The government is formed and perpetuated only with the concent of the governed
So this is a democracy where the consent of the majority counts as the consent of the governed, or will you allow secession?
freeradical:(complacency being considered a form of consent).
But it is not...
freeradical:Once created it is imperative that the government be constrained by the governed, or the "sovereign" in the language of Rousseau, in order to prevent the government from attaining enough strength to overpower the entire public (rather than just an individual or a small group of individuals).
This has yet to work out well....
freeradical:If the governed fail to do this the government will become a dictatorship which may be worse than anarchy.
What is better than anarchy?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
freeradical:There is a role for government and that role is to protect property rights. This requires the use of force against individuals within the society as well as against enemies from outside.
Contradiction. What you're saying is: coercion is required to protect us from coercion.
freeradical:This is beneficial to the governed because it is far more efficient than a state of anarchy where every individual must use up resources protecting their property from every other member.
What's wrong with letting people decide what's best for themselves? Do you presume to know what's best for everyone else? If yes, why should you force your assesment on unwilling people? What's wrong with voluntary association?
You'll find that most of us are not anarchists because we have discovered the perfect system by which no one's rights are violated. We simply reject the notion that institutionalizing coercion is a good way to protect us from coercion. It's about ethics, not 'efficiency.'
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
It's no wonder that the Americans destroyed everything in Iraq since they do not understand the difference between a state and a government, and they thought they could just disband the state and then easily take back control of the country with a new government.
Man, was that wrong.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The only role for government is if people want to be governed. Like a voluntary business agreement, they can start being governed if the "government" wants to govern and the client wants to be governed. Either can stop this contractual arrangement.
If the consent of both parties is not happening, but the person is still being governed, it is a crime.
Schools are labour camps.
Stranger: It's no wonder that the Americans destroyed everything in Iraq since they do not understand the difference between a state and a government, and they thought they could just disband the state and then easily take back control of the country with a new government. Man, was that wrong.
Better yet, these guys seem to think every property owner under anarchy is a state.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Wow this is fantastic! OK here are some thoughts.
First, I am a student of Barzel who is probably not well known in these circles but provides the following definition of the state:
"The state consists of (I) a set of individuals who are subject to a single ultimate third party who uses violence for enforcement and (2) a territory where these individuals reside, demarcated by the reach of the enforcer's power."
By government I mean the third party enforcer. There of course are other possible entities which could fill this role. So France is a state which at different times is ruled by different governments.
"Contradiction. What you're saying is: coercion is required to protect us from coercion." (I don't know how to do those little quote boxes....)
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying, it's not a contradiction. People submit to being coerced by one party (the government) in order to gain protection from coercion by other parties.
It is my view that complacency is a form of consent. From what I have seen, this fits perfectly with Austrian concepts of choice. People are willingly choose one situation over another. When I pay my taxes, I choose to pay them rather than suffer the consequences of not paying them. When I choose to obey the law I choose to do it rather than suffer the consequences of not doing it. It doesn't mean I prefer these options to any set of options that i can possibly imagine having the ability to choose from. But it doesn't mean I have no choice. I believe governments are self interested and desire to grow in size and scope. That is the reason for number 4. The government changes the incentives of compliance, but the governed also have the ability to change these conditions. So long as most people are willing to consent to the current tax system I face the decision to pay the tax (consent) or go to jail. If most people are prepared not to consent, the options change (pay taxes or rebel, where rebel has consequences determined by the size of government and the extent to which others are also willing to rebel). The government must take this into account when choosing it's policies and therefore the threat can be used to control it. I think we are doing a poor job of this in America right now. I think it is true historically that nobody has been able to achieve this indefinitely but I don't think that means it is logically impossible (in fact, this seems like a positivist argument to me). Of course anyone can say they disagree with this characterization of "consent" but without offering an alternative framework which is more useful, we will just have to agree to disagree.
With regard to efficiency, there are two issues. First, it is not my position that one need sell their soul for efficiency. However given that fact I think it is worth taking into consideration. With that in mind, it is a simple argument of specialization and economies of scale. This seemingly is acknowledged by Sage: "shoes are also produced on the market. Does everyone make their own shoes? No. Likewise, there would be a division of labor and specialization in the production of security." So let's consider the implications of market provision of security. First, I propose that individual production is nearly impossible (please note the "nearly"). This is because some people are bound to be better at fighting than others and they could take from those who are weaker. What is even more compelling in my mind is the fact that, if you were to produce anything else you would have to stop (to some extent) providing security. That is to say, if you ever pick up a plow you must put down your gun for some period of time. So all I have to do is wait for you to do this and then shoot you in the back and all you had is mine (this is not even considering the biological need for sleep). So all this really means is people would have to work together to provide protection. I'll cover you while you sleep/plow etc. and you do the same for me. Let's just assume that this type of contract is self enforcible. Still, this means that if I can organize a bigger group of people than you can, we can overpower yours and take everything you have. This causes an incentive to form the largest, most powerful (and most likely specialized) group of "protectors" possible. So what you end up with is just two states with two governments.
It is my view that complacency is a form of consent. From what I have seen, this fits perfectly with Austrian concepts of choice.
it's not a contradiction. People submit to being coerced
Laughing Man: Delving further into your 'delusion' you seem to think that if the US government were to crumble, all of these people would somehow still have jobs, still have power, and somehow be above an average individual. I contest you are wrong.
I contest that you are incapable of understanding my point and are an idiot battling strawmen.
Laughing Man:Here I was thinking that property rights existed and that a man who didn't own this personal land had no right to dictate the environment of it.
Oh, you've just disproved the existance of governments. Fantastic!
Back in the real world, governments do exist and do they find ways to exercise power.
When you learn to seperate a factual observation from a declaration of preference, let me know.
Peace
Laughing Man: Stranger:It would continue to collect the taxes it is owed and to distribute them to the many different organizations as they are owed. How would it collect taxes without being government?
Stranger:It would continue to collect the taxes it is owed and to distribute them to the many different organizations as they are owed.
How would it collect taxes without being government?
Here is a perfect example.
Stranger did not say that the State could collect taxes without being a political entity (using Franz Oppenheimer's definition of the political means) He said that the State, because of its bureaucratic nature, is self sustaining; able to exist without the need for politicians in the Capital to issue it orders.
Republican Governments exist to give a sense of legitimacy to the State, which pre-exist their current Governments and were originally formed under Monarchy.
Juan:Jon, your usage of the words 'government' and 'state' is non-standard.
Appeal to the masses. Most people don't consider taxation to be coercion, doesn't make it true.
This is clearly not a personal definition, it is the proper use that has fallen out of style. No purpose is fulfilled by having State and Government be synonyms. Precise language is required for accurate understanding.
Though the two terms are related, and even if they were inseparable, they still are not interchangeable.
JonBostwick: Juan:Jon, your usage of the words 'government' and 'state' is non-standard. Appeal to the masses. Most people don't consider taxation to be coercion, doesn't make it true. This is clearly not a personal definition, it is the proper use that has fallen out of style. No purpose is fulfilled by having State and Government be synonyms. Precise language is required for accurate understanding. Though the two terms are related, and even if they were inseparable, they still are not interchangeable.
Government, State, I still think they are the same. They both hold a coercive monopoly in a territory. This seems like fine hair separating going on here, what's this intellectual exercise about anyways?
freeradical:It is my view that complacency is a form of consent. From what I have seen, this fits perfectly with Austrian concepts of choice. People are willingly choose one situation over another.
Complacency is not a morally binding form of consent. To consent to something means to take deliberate actions that constitute voluntary undertakings or agreements. Signs of consent must be especially clear and uncontroversial if they are to count as grounding political obligations. In light of this, mere acquiescence is surely not a clear sign of consent, and cannot ground binding consent.
If mere acquiescence did ground binding consent, then we would have to say that victims of robbery who did not violently resist were not actually robbed, but instead voluntarily gave away their money. Or as Hume recognized: "We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her." Clearly, this is absurd. Consent under duress is no consent at all.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
JonBostwick:Appeal to the masses.
This is clearly not a personal definition, it is the proper use that has fallen out of style.
No purpose is fulfilled by having State and Government be synonyms.
Precise language is required for accurate understanding.
Juan: Source(s) ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state#Etymology
Juan: Well, but they happen to be synonyms. Actually synonyms have no real purpose. By the way, state is also synonymous to nation/country.
Also wrong. A nation is a group of people with shared ancestry; which is why Nation-State is not redundant. And why Austro-Hungary was an Empire and not a Nation.
Country is a muddied term, but it has more to do with the actual geography.
Also wrong
A nation is a group of people with shared ancestry;
The Rothbard article on Anatomy of the State proves that further debate into this subject is in my eyes unnecessary.
Juan:Also wrong No, you are wrong on all counts. Do check English dictionaries, not wikipedia (which by the way doesn't prove your point either).
Sorry, I know we aren't on equal footing, but I didn't initiate this semantics debate. But trust me, I know more about the nuance of the English language, then you do.
Are you aware of the term Nation of Israel?
And, of course, an encyclopedia article is going to be more precious than a dictionary.
Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. Countries where the social concept of "nation" coincides with the political concept of "state" are called nation states.
Juan:A nation is a group of people with shared ancestry; Spare me the 'racially aware' nationalism or whatever you want to call it.
Of course, anyone who uses the word race is a racist. My mistake.
You and Laughing Man should be friends. You both have a nack for inventing imaginative things to put in other people's mouth.
Laughing Man: The Rothbard article on Anatomy of the State proves that further debate into this subject is in my eyes unnecessary.
Could you please quote the part where Rothbard discusses the two terms?
Or is this just the fallacy of appeal to authority?
Laughing Man: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html
Right, went there, but I didn't find where he discussed the terms.
I was hoping you might bring the relevant section into this thread.
We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.
If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.
Witness how sleamlessly he uses the word government/state. There is no difference.
Laughing Man:Witness how sleamlessly he uses the word government/state. There is no difference.
As I thought, appeal to authority.
If you would like to reference an argument made by Rothbard, feel free.
He also said:
in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.
Are we to believe that Rothbard ruled out the possibility of the existence of any criminal organization other than the State? Even he is not immune to imprecision.
Of course, Rothbard is correct, we are neither the Government nor the State.
JonBostwick:Sorry, I know we aren't on equal footing, but I didn't initiate this semantics debate. But trust me, I know more about the nuance of the English language, then you do.
, then than you do.
JonBostwick: Laughing Man:Witness how sleamlessly he uses the word government/state. There is no difference. As I thought, appeal to authority.
Yes JonBostwick but didn't you use the Encyclopedia a few posts back to appeal to an authority on your definition. Didn't you open the door in other words? I still think the State and Government are the same. This still looks like intellectual hair-splitting, but split away. I'll watch the process unfold.
JonBostwick: As I thought, appeal to authority. If you would like to reference an argument made by Rothbard, feel free.
Says the man who has presented nothing resembling evidence other then what he thinks. But please, don't let me saying that stop you from actually doing such a thing.
JonBostwick:Are we to believe that Rothbard ruled out the possibility of the existence of any criminal organization other than the State? Even he is not immune to imprecision.
The article concerns solely the government and what it is and isn't. Obviously you have to take that into consideration.
wilderness:Yes JonBostwick but didn't you use the Encyclopedia a few posts back to appeal to an authority on your definition. Didn't you open the door in other words?
I was accused of using a personal definition. The encyclopedia is evidence refuting that accusation.
Laughing Man: JonBostwick:Are we to believe that Rothbard ruled out the possibility of the existence of any criminal organization other than the State? Even he is not immune to imprecision. The article concerns solely the government and what it is and isn't. Obviously you have to take that into consideration.
Good, and that article was not about the issue of the continuation of the State after a Government dissolution(or any other issue where the distinction becomes relevant). If it was, he might have been more careful of his usage, no?
Laughing Man: JonBostwick: As I thought, appeal to authority. If you would like to reference an argument made by Rothbard, feel free. Says the man who has presented nothing resembling evidence other then what he thinks.
Says the man who has presented nothing resembling evidence other then what he thinks.
I offered argument, as well as historical reference, actually. Its all there to (re)read.
JonBostwick: wilderness:Yes JonBostwick but didn't you use the Encyclopedia a few posts back to appeal to an authority on your definition. Didn't you open the door in other words? I was accused of using a personal definition. The encyclopedia is evidence refuting that accusation.
ok, fair enough.... but Rothbard using the term interchangeably I think has an underlying meaning. They are different concepts, State and government, ones even spelled long than the other, but they both are a coercive monopoly upon a territory and I still don't see the difference when understood in this way.
wilderness:They are different concepts, State and government, ones even spelled long than the other, but they both are a coercive monopoly upon a territory and I still don't see the difference when understood in this way.
They aren't both a coercive monopoly. The State is the coercive monopoly. Government is the organization that directs the State.
Think of the Polish Government-in-exile. It was a government, but it lacked a State to control.
JonBostwick:Good, and that article was not about the issue of the continuation of the State after a Government dissolution(or any other issue where the distinction becomes relevant). If it was, he might have been more careful of his usage, no?
This article is what the government is. Rothbard uses the term interchangibly therefore there is no issue of the 'state' continuing after the government for they are same. I think you are purposely being dense towards this fact in order to save face.
JonBostwick:I offered argument, as well as historical reference, actually. Its all there to (re)read.
Not based on any scholarly works or articles. Just merely you implying 'I think this therefore it is correct'
JonBostwick: Think of the Polish Government-in-exile. It was a government, but it lacked a State to control.
What...are you trying to imply that Poland is a state in and of itself? Like actually pointing on the map and outling its borders and saying 'This is the Polish State'?
JonBostwick: wilderness:They are different concepts, State and government, ones even spelled long than the other, but they both are a coercive monopoly upon a territory and I still don't see the difference when understood in this way. They aren't both a coercive monopoly. The State is the coercive monopoly. Government is the organization that directs the State. Think of the Polish Government-in-exile. It was a government, but it lacked a State to control.
So government directs the coerciveness. Sounds even more vile.
And what was the point of the Polish Government-in-exile? What was it about and how did the government officials get paid?
Laughing Man:Rothbard uses the term interchangibly therefore there is no issue of the 'state' continuing after the government for they are same.
Does that appear to be a sound argument to you?
JonBostwick: Laughing Man:Rothbard uses the term interchangibly therefore there is no issue of the 'state' continuing after the government for they are same. Does that appear to be a sound argument to you?
Yes. This is becoming truly absurd. I see that the state and government are two terms used to explain a single institution. So naturally if the government ends, it is as natural as saying the state ends.
wilderness:And what was the point of the Polish Government-in-exile? What was it about and how did the government officials get paid?
After Poland was conquered in World War II, the Polish Government evacuated to France then England.
I imagine it was funded solely by the Allied powers.