Political Theory

Re: Micro-Analysis Framework for State Action

Robert Lynn — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:13:55 GMT

Thanks for posting, AJ. You managed to pick a key point I was trying to make -- and you honed right in on it.

Anyway, I think it helps to focus on a view of the state agent as something that is normatively good. In my argumentation, I try to say that the point is NOT so much:

Government is too expensive (though it is)

Government is too inefficient (though it is)

Government is too corrupt (though it is)

But rather, I try to say that a specific, agreed analytical approach should be able to qualify the action of a state agent: at the unit level, such that it is clear and evident that it is in fact a good. The failure of Economists and Philosophers to develop such concepts is part of core causation for state chaos and violence.

Re: Micro-Analysis Framework for State Action

AJ — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:02:34 GMT

"Though it may sound forgiving, state agents suffer in their disorder. In fact, they should be viewed as ensnared in philosophical systems which encourage their sadism. .... As part of official duties, the state agent violates the will of others and is compensated for it. Herein is revealed the building block of sadistic systems that lead to mass corporatized violence."

Interesting. I don't know about the rest of the essay, but I think this passage is a step forward in clarity. Statism is a systemic disease of society, not just the result of a haphazard band of pirates.

Micro-Analysis Framework for State Action

Robert Lynn — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:51:22 GMT

I prepared the attached redux which captures many of the essentials
of a longer (and more cumbersome) work titled The Cartesian State.

In this attached summary, I try to propose a simple, yet carefully
derived, theoretical model which suggests a possible intrinsic order
of the statist corporate body -- as it exists in nature.

With the help of additional concepts, a micro-level test is then proposed
for assessing the order of a specific action of a state agent, at the unit level.

As such, I submit that in the mechanics of an individual state action
one can discern the beginnings of corporatized disorder --
which, if undetected, predictably lead to more fully operational, systematized forms of violence.

Hopefully, these conceptual tools can offer a helpful perspective
and stimulate determination in those working at the problem of state
chaos.

N.B. I'd ask that you at least glance briefly at the table on page 18.
It presents an aggregate view of how I think corporate systems
advance from secularist pragmatism into nihilistic primitivism, and
its associated barbaric anthropological forms. (I honestly think
this table should at least mildly interest those dedicated to
better understanding the corporate state as an entity.)