Political Theory

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Republicae — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:27:53 GMT

Nathyn:

I made no assumtions of the individuals who make up The State, nor did I attribute them with a particular moral standing; that it seems, was purely your interpretation. The State is indeed made up of individuals who, without moral or immoral inclinations, function under their delegated duties. It has nothing to do with “evil” or “good” in a moral sense, but it has to do with the operational asspects of a system that becomes expodentially complex, so complex that the parts [or individuals] become unaware of the workings of the whole.

The actions of The State will, being increasingly self-contained without the limitations of say the Constitution, continue to extend de facto law; regulating and criminalizing any action or preceived action based upon an arbitrary application of legislation, laws and acts it creates to expand its reach. It has nothing to do with a moral attribute, but a bureaucratic one. If you veiw any massive state appartatus in history you will see the gradual decline of the rights of the individual as The State increases its reach within areas once regarded as the sole purview of the individual. It is not necessarily a conscious decision by an individual or group of individuals within that state apparatus to tresspass upon those rights, but it appears to be a natural evolution of power and authority.

The more power and authority The State garners to itself the more it expands and feeds upon the society. Our government, for instance, has not only expanded in size and scope over the last century, but that expansion has come at a very high cost to the individual. The State is not a conscious entity, but it is an entity made up of indivudals performing their respective duties and bureaucrats with seemingly good intentions doing exactly what they do: create, maintain, and promote bureaucracy. It is a fact that the more bureaucratic a government becomes the less it is actually responsive to the rights and desires of the people. This is not necessarily embuing The State as “evil” or the individuals that make up The State, nor is it attributing a conscious decision on the part of those who make up The State with a specific agenda set against the rights and desires of the people, but it should be recognized that the nature of a growing bureaucratic power always gravitates toward promoting itself and its power over the sovereignty of the individual and the individual’s rights.

Concerning reading books by such authors as Lenin, or a Fabian Socialist; I find it a standard intellectual proceedure when seeking to understand a particular concept, such as The State, that it is advisable to read the writings of those who promoted The State above all else. Give it a try, you might actually come away with some valuable insight on the issue. As far as your accusation that I am, of all things, a “collectivist”, there again it appears if I were I would not be condemning The State but I would be heaping praise upon it instead, since The State desires “collectivism” above all else since under a collective there is far more control given over to The State.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Inquisitor — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:47:07 GMT

Nathyn, you are such a joke...

You're right. I admit my understanding of what it meant was wrong. But I was correct in saying Austrian economics is methodologically individualist, even if I improperly used the term "methodenstreit."

Yes, you were right. Why did you evoke the term if you had no idea what it meant? Oh, and I recall on the Austrian forum you seemed to think this is some unique feature of Austrianism, when I mentioned neoclassical economics is itself firmly based on the notion. More ignorance on your part?

Surely, you ought to give me some slack, since some people here have demonstrated:
They've never read or understood Keynes' General Theory, or ever attended any Econ 101 class at a respectable school
They don't know that modern scientists are not "Logical Positivists" or how positivism has developed
They don't know Karl Popper's contributions to science
They don't know what pareto optimality is (thus, not having any idea of what "market failure" actually means, in most cases)
They don't know what an externality is
They don't know what an "adulterant" is
They don't understand Anarchism's Marxist origins (such as the person above who cited Emma Goldman of all people)
They don't know practically anything about Marxism or Socialism
They don't understand the classic arguments for the existence of government
They don't understand how "property" has historically been considered as ambiguous, for various reasons.

Are you referring to yourself here? Because you are about the only person who seems to have got nearly everyone of these wrong.

You reject mainstream economics, the social sciences, and government but your entire education on the matter -- based on the evidence (if you don't mind me resorting to empiricism, for a moment) -- has seemingly consisted of reading articles and books provided by Mises.org, Wikipedia, and any other semi-academic scraps of information you might find on the internet.

The social sciences? No. Mainstream economics? Depends on which parts of it you mean.

And so, when I discuss such things, I have to resort to giving you a basic lesson every time I speak!

No, child, it is you who needs a lesson, every time you speak. You don't understand rationalism or epistemological/methodological issues more generally, have some naive Popperian view of science without in fact understanding what this entails and how science actually proceeds (and are also ignorant of the contributions of individuals such as Kuhn.) Your knowledge of ethical and economic issues is even more terrible. So be candid: are you serious?

I think that deep down even you guys, yourselves, know that you don't know what you're talking about because every time I make an argument, you guys essentially scramble to create an justification for your ideology on spot explaining why I'm wrong, rather than having already considered the widely established criticisms of Austrian economics and anarchy.

Deep down, we do. Speak for yourself, oh ignorant one. The so-called 'widely established' criticisms of Austrianism have been considered and rebutted, in most cases. It is cute how you want to give yourself an air of respectability though.

To cut a long story short, you screwed up, again. You will, again, in the future, to be sure. You criticize Austrian economics without understanding it. You are a troll, and nothing more, yet have the audacity to criticize people more knowledgeable than yourself. Go bark up some other tree, beloved troll, for no one here is buying your act.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Nathyn — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:22:39 GMT

Mark B.:
Nathyn:
My original education was in the Keynesian and Chicago Schools of thought. I took and passed "standard" college economics courses, with an "A" grade, mind you. I was well beyond my "formal" education period before I found the Austrian school. I read books by the Austrian greats, including Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and others. Including both "Human Action" and "Man, Economy and State." I came into the Austrian school with views much more consistent with standard "Chicago" school thought. My previous views were skewered with what I learned here. I am now a full fledged Austrian as I found my previous views to be indefensible against what I learned here.
As for my non economic views. I was raised in a standard "Reagan" republican family. My libertarian views fleshed out PRIOR to my learning of the Austrian school. The Austrian school has merely made me a "better" and more consistent "libertarian."
Sit down and read "Man, Economy and State", preferably the Scholars Edition, from beginning to end. Or "Human Action". Without doing so, you cannot claim to understand the Austrian system.

Hello. How are you? I'm glad to see someone like you posting. I don't believe we've met on this forum yet.

Anonymous Coward:
Nathyn:
You're right. I admit my understanding of what it meant was wrong. But I was correct in saying Austrian economics is methodologically individualist, even if I improperly used the term "methodenstreit."
Surely, you ought to give me some slack, since some people here have demonstrated:
They've never read or understood Keynes' General Theory, or ever attended any Econ 101 class at a respectable school
They don't know that modern scientists are not "Logical Positivists" or how positivism has developed
They don't know Karl Popper's contributions to science
They don't know what pareto optimality is (thus, not having any idea of what "market failure" actually means, in most cases)
They don't know what an externality is
They don't know what an "adulterant" is
They don't understand Anarchism's Marxist origins (such as the person above who cited Emma Goldman of all people)
They don't know practically anything about Marxism or Socialism
They don't understand the classic arguments for the existence of government
They don't understand how "property" has historically been considered as ambiguous, for various reasons.
You reject mainstream economics, the social sciences, and government but your entire education on the matter -- based on the evidence (if you don't mind me resorting to empiricism, for a moment) -- has seemingly consisted of reading articles and books provided by Mises.org, Wikipedia, and any other semi-academic scraps of information you might find on the internet.
And so, when I discuss such things, I have to resort to giving you a basic lesson every time I speak!
I think that deep down even you guys, yourselves, know that you don't know what you're talking about because every time I make an argument, you guys essentially scramble to create an justification for your ideology on spot explaining why I'm wrong, rather than having already considered the widely established criticisms of Austrian economics and anarchy.
You tell me to read Rothbard. Have you read Rothbard? If so, why does it seem like you have such difficulty in defending his beliefs, in more than one case even misrepresenting them?
So, surely, with such a rampant degree of ignorance, even about your own school of thought, surely you ought to cut me some slack when I make one wrong statement -- particularly when, unlike a lot of people here, I have the maturity and intellectual integrity to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong. And I was wrong about methodenstreit.
This especially ought to be true since both Anarchy and Austrian economics are accepted by almost no one, so as to generally make their investigation seem on the surface to the average person as fruitless as studying Scientology.
I come here because I want to know the exact nature of Austrian economics, so that I can be sure I'm not disputing their arguments out of ignorance.
You, though, seem to have a very strong hostility to any opposing opinion. But as John Stuart Mill rightly notes in On Liberty, unless you actually hear opposing views and consider the possibility that you might be wrong, you're basically engaging in willfull ignorance.
What's wrong with the Wikipedia?

Nothing, as a basic reference. But it can be inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Anonymous Coward — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:02:50 GMT

Nathyn:
You're right. I admit my understanding of what it meant was wrong. But I was correct in saying Austrian economics is methodologically individualist, even if I improperly used the term "methodenstreit."
Surely, you ought to give me some slack, since some people here have demonstrated:
They've never read or understood Keynes' General Theory, or ever attended any Econ 101 class at a respectable school
They don't know that modern scientists are not "Logical Positivists" or how positivism has developed
They don't know Karl Popper's contributions to science
They don't know what pareto optimality is (thus, not having any idea of what "market failure" actually means, in most cases)
They don't know what an externality is
They don't know what an "adulterant" is
They don't understand Anarchism's Marxist origins (such as the person above who cited Emma Goldman of all people)
They don't know practically anything about Marxism or Socialism
They don't understand the classic arguments for the existence of government
They don't understand how "property" has historically been considered as ambiguous, for various reasons.
You reject mainstream economics, the social sciences, and government but your entire education on the matter -- based on the evidence (if you don't mind me resorting to empiricism, for a moment) -- has seemingly consisted of reading articles and books provided by Mises.org, Wikipedia, and any other semi-academic scraps of information you might find on the internet.
And so, when I discuss such things, I have to resort to giving you a basic lesson every time I speak!
I think that deep down even you guys, yourselves, know that you don't know what you're talking about because every time I make an argument, you guys essentially scramble to create an justification for your ideology on spot explaining why I'm wrong, rather than having already considered the widely established criticisms of Austrian economics and anarchy.
You tell me to read Rothbard. Have you read Rothbard? If so, why does it seem like you have such difficulty in defending his beliefs, in more than one case even misrepresenting them?
So, surely, with such a rampant degree of ignorance, even about your own school of thought, surely you ought to cut me some slack when I make one wrong statement -- particularly when, unlike a lot of people here, I have the maturity and intellectual integrity to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong. And I was wrong about methodenstreit.
This especially ought to be true since both Anarchy and Austrian economics are accepted by almost no one, so as to generally make their investigation seem on the surface to the average person as fruitless as studying Scientology.
I come here because I want to know the exact nature of Austrian economics, so that I can be sure I'm not disputing their arguments out of ignorance.
You, though, seem to have a very strong hostility to any opposing opinion. But as John Stuart Mill rightly notes in On Liberty, unless you actually hear opposing views and consider the possibility that you might be wrong, you're basically engaging in willfull ignorance.

What's wrong with the Wikipedia?

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Mark B. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:40:10 GMT

Nathyn:

My original education was in the Keynesian and Chicago Schools of thought. I took and passed "standard" college economics courses, with an "A" grade, mind you. I was well beyond my "formal" education period before I found the Austrian school. I read books by the Austrian greats, including Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and others. Including both "Human Action" and "Man, Economy and State." I came into the Austrian school with views much more consistent with standard "Chicago" school thought. My previous views were skewered with what I learned here. I am now a full fledged Austrian as I found my previous views to be indefensible against what I learned here.

As for my non economic views. I was raised in a standard "Reagan" republican family. My libertarian views fleshed out PRIOR to my learning of the Austrian school. The Austrian school has merely made me a "better" and more consistent "libertarian."

Sit down and read "Man, Economy and State", preferably the Scholars Edition, from beginning to end. Or "Human Action". Without doing so, you cannot claim to understand the Austrian system.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

ozzy43 — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:24:40 GMT

Nathyn:
And so, when I discuss such things, I have to resort to giving you a basic lesson every time I speak!

Basic lessons in sophistry, logical fallacy, and hubris - those are the only lessons I see you trying to teach.

Nathyn:
I come here because I want to know the exact nature of Austrian economics

Blatantly false - your incessant pestiferousness is clearly targeted at provocation, not truth seeking. We understand that you are not serious about presenting opposing views and holding an honest debate. You are a troll, and we simply recognize this fact and respond accordingly. If you wish a different response, stop being a troll.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Nathyn — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:30:19 GMT

Anonymous Coward:
Nathyn:
Methodological individualism.
So that means you don't know what it means then...

You're right. I admit my understanding of what it meant was wrong. But I was correct in saying Austrian economics is methodologically individualist, even if I improperly used the term "methodenstreit."

Surely, you ought to give me some slack, since some people here have demonstrated:

They've never read or understood Keynes' General Theory, or ever attended any Econ 101 class at a respectable school
They don't know that modern scientists are not "Logical Positivists" or how positivism has developed
They don't know Karl Popper's contributions to science
They don't know what pareto optimality is (thus, not having any idea of what "market failure" actually means, in most cases)
They don't know what an externality is
They don't know what an "adulterant" is
They don't understand Anarchism's Marxist origins (such as the person above who cited Emma Goldman of all people)
They don't know practically anything about Marxism or Socialism
They don't understand the classic arguments for the existence of government
They don't understand how "property" has historically been considered as ambiguous, for various reasons.

You reject mainstream economics, the social sciences, and government but your entire education on the matter -- based on the evidence (if you don't mind me resorting to empiricism, for a moment) -- has seemingly consisted of reading articles and books provided by Mises.org, Wikipedia, and any other semi-academic scraps of information you might find on the internet.

And so, when I discuss such things, I have to resort to giving you a basic lesson every time I speak!

I think that deep down even you guys, yourselves, know that you don't know what you're talking about because every time I make an argument, you guys essentially scramble to create an justification for your ideology on spot explaining why I'm wrong, rather than having already considered the widely established criticisms of Austrian economics and anarchy.

You tell me to read Rothbard. Have you read Rothbard? If so, why does it seem like you have such difficulty in defending his beliefs, in more than one case even misrepresenting them?

So, surely, with such a rampant degree of ignorance, even about your own school of thought, surely you ought to cut me some slack when I make one wrong statement -- particularly when, unlike a lot of people here, I have the maturity and intellectual integrity to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong. And I was wrong about methodenstreit.

This especially ought to be true since both Anarchy and Austrian economics are accepted by almost no one, so as to generally make their investigation seem on the surface to the average person as fruitless as studying Scientology.

I come here because I want to know the exact nature of Austrian economics, so that I can be sure I'm not disputing their arguments out of ignorance.

You, though, seem to have a very strong hostility to any opposing opinion. But as John Stuart Mill rightly notes in On Liberty, unless you actually hear opposing views and consider the possibility that you might be wrong, you're basically engaging in willfull ignorance.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Anonymous Coward — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:40:12 GMT

Nathyn:
Methodological individualism.

So that means you don't know what it means then...

From the wikipedia:

Methodenstreit is a German term (lit. 'strife over methods') referring to an intellectual controversy or debate over epistemology, research methodology, or the way in which academic inquiry is framed or pursued.

Nathyn:
You don't see me saying, "THE AUSTRIANS... this..." and "THE AUSTRIANS... that..." at least not without invoking individual people.

You don't actually read the bullshit you post then?

Nathyn:
Also, radical groups create a common enemy in ways that can be explained individually by psychology and sociology.

Wait, the individuals create the 'common enemy' but you are attributing the act of creating to 'radical groups'?

I think that one is called 'fallacy of composition'.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Nathyn — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:06:32 GMT

Inquisitor:

How does it contradict the methodenstreit? Tongue Tied Do you even know what the term refers to?

Methodological individualism.

The only thing that can be said about people must be said about individuals.

You can't say "the state does this and that" without explaining exactly what its individual components were doing.

The original post assume that the state is a person that is consciously evil.

ozzy43:

Nathyn:

You're creating a collective enemy, a "boogie man." All radical groups have them...

In every case, they deny the existence of the individual.

This is, not surprising, pure nonsense. Seriously, dude, you would do better to study and read a bit more instead of making things up as you go along out of whole cloth.

To accept that individuals can act together in a collective fashion is not at all to deny the existence of the individual. Corporation, churches, States, etc are some of the more obvious examples. Does a corporation really deny the existence of the individual??? A church? A State?

No, but to personify them as a conscious entity and claim collective action without explaining the individual action behind it, is pretty fallacious.

ozzy43:

In this instance, as regards the State, the original poster is merely following in the footsteps of formidable political intellects, such as Nock, Spencer, Rothbard, Oppenheimer, not to mention Emma Goldman and even Randolph Bourne. By your easy dismissal of 'the State' as collective entity, you are in essence asserting your intellectual superiority over these and more - that you are so far above them that you can dismiss their conceptualizations as "ridiculous", that you are privy to a stupendously higher level of intellectual development than they, and that you are competent to instruct us as to why you are right, and they wrong...an astonishing assertion.

So let's examine what these thinkers had to say about the 'State' - the non-existent 'collective enemy' and 'ridiculous' 'boogie man' according to you. Then we'll compare their profundities with your posts on this board and then we can all decide which is the greater intellect and which is sophistry and nonsense:

Goldman:

That slow and arduous liberation of the individual was not accomplished by the aid of the State. On the contrary, it was by continuous conflict, by a life-and death struggle with the State, that even the smallest vestige of independence and freedom has been won. It has cost mankind much time and blood to secure what little it has gained so far from kings, tsars and governments.

The great heroic figure of that long Golgotha has been Man. It has always been the individual, often alone and singly, at other times in unity and co-operation with others of his kind, who has fought and bled in the age-long battle against suppression and oppression, against the powers that enslave and degrade him.

More than that and more significant: It was man, the individual, whose soul first rebelled against injustice and degradation; it was the individual who first conceived the idea of resistance to the conditions under which he chafed. In short, it is always the individual who is the parent of the liberating thought as well as of the deed.

Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against ‘society,’ that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man's greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development.

Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges. In other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind.

Bourne:

Wartime brings the ideal of the State out into very clear relief, and reveals attitudes and tendencies that were hidden. In times of peace the sense of the State flags in a republic that is not militarized. For war is essentially the health of the State. The ideal of the State is that within its territory its power and influence should be universal. As the Church is the medium for the spiritual salvation of man, so the State is thought of as the medium for his political salvation. Its idealism is a rich blood flowing to all the members of the body politic. And it is precisely in war that the urgency for union seems greatest, and the necessity for universality seems most unquestioned. The State is the organization of the herd to act offensively or defensively against another herd similarly organized. The more terrifying the occasion for defense, the closer will become the organization and the more coercive the influence upon each member of the herd. War sends the current of purpose and activity flowing down to the lowest level of the herd, and to its most remote branches. All the activities of society are linked together as fast as possible to this central purpose of making a military offensive or a military defense, and the State becomes what in peacetimes it has vainly struggled to become - the inexorable arbiter and determinant of men's business and attitudes and opinions.

Nock:

The State, then, whether primitive, feudal or merchant, is the organization of the political means. Now, since man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion, he will employ the political means whenever he can – exclusively, if possible; otherwise, in association with the economic means. He will, at the present time, that is, have recourse to the State's modern apparatus of exploitation; the apparatus of tariffs, concessions, rent-monopoly, and the like. It is a matter of the commonest observation that this is his first instinct. So long, therefore, as the organization of the political means is available – so long as the highly-centralized bureaucratic State stands as primarily a distributor of economic advantage, an arbiter of exploitation, so long will that instinct effectively declare itself. A proletarian State would merely, like the merchant-State, shift the incidence of exploitation, and there is no historic ground for the presumption that a collectivist State would be in any essential respect unlike its predecessors; as we are beginning to see, "the Russian experiment" has amounted to the erection of a highly-centralized bureaucratic State upon the ruins of another, leaving the entire apparatus of exploitation intact and ready for use. Hence, in view of the law of fundamental economics just cited, the expectation that collectivism will appreciably alter the essential character of the State appears illusory.

Rothbard:

The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the "organization of the political means"; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

Yes, and they're all collectivists, at least when they refer to "THE STATE". I mean, geez, man, you cited Emma Goldman. She's a friggin' Marxist and Anarcha-Feminist, for crying out loud. And Bourne was a progressive. Of course the first two are going to be collectivists.

Republicae:
I would suggest the following reading Nathyn:

The Theory of the State by Bluntschli, Ritchie, Matheson and Lodge 1885

Authority in the Modern State by Laski [a fabian socialist] 1917

The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin republished in 2004

Der griechische und der hellenistiche Staat by Ehrenberg 1969

An Examination of the Nature of the State by Willoughby 1896

Society without Coercion by Wollstein

The Pragmatic Revolt in Politics by Elliott 1928

Leviathan in Crisis by Browne 1946

Four Phases of American Development by Moore 1912

Thats a good start....

Hold on, I'm criticizing you for being a collectivist and you're telling me to read books by a Fabian Socialist, and even Lenin?

I mean, man, it would be like me accusing you of racism and you telling me, "You really need to read Mein Kampf."

Anonymous Coward:

Nathyn:
You're creating a collective enemy, a "boogie man." All radical groups have them...

In every case, they deny the existence of the individual.

Which fallacy would this be I wonder...

All radical groups have a collective enemy. The author created a collective enemy therefore the author is part of a radical group.

Categorical Syllogism?

In every case, they deny the existence of the individual.

Converse fallacy of accident maybe?

Have no how the last statement relates to your argument anyway... It really adds nothing of value or relates in any way to your other statements, what you read that somewhere and decided to throw it in for good measure.

No, you're all just individuals.

You don't see me saying, "THE AUSTRIANS... this..." and "THE AUSTRIANS... that..." at least not without invoking individual people.

The original poster just explained two centuries of government with only a couple actual individuals mentioned.

Also, radical groups create a common enemy in ways that can be explained individually by psychology and sociology.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Anonymous Coward — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:21:45 GMT

Nathyn:
You're creating a collective enemy, a "boogie man." All radical groups have them...
In every case, they deny the existence of the individual.

Which fallacy would this be I wonder...

All radical groups have a collective enemy. The author created a collective enemy therefore the author is part of a radical group.

Categorical Syllogism?

In every case, they deny the existence of the individual.

Converse fallacy of accident maybe?

Have no how the last statement relates to your argument anyway... It really adds nothing of value or relates in any way to your other statements, what you read that somewhere and decided to throw it in for good measure.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

ozzy43 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:16:59 GMT

Add to that list, this comprehensive and directly on target essay which definitively refutes the myth of 'democratic pacifism' which Nathyn apparently swallowed whole, like innumerable other conventional thinkers:

The Myth of Democratic Peace

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Republicae — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:38:36 GMT

I would suggest the following reading Nathyn:

The Theory of the State by Bluntschli, Ritchie, Matheson and Lodge 1885

Authority in the Modern State by Laski [a fabian socialist] 1917

The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin republished in 2004

Der griechische und der hellenistiche Staat by Ehrenberg 1969

An Examination of the Nature of the State by Willoughby 1896

Society without Coercion by Wollstein

The Pragmatic Revolt in Politics by Elliott 1928

Leviathan in Crisis by Browne 1946

Four Phases of American Development by Moore 1912

Thats a good start....

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Republicae — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:07:59 GMT

I dare say that his definition is a stretch, as I said he is straining at gnats.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

Republicae — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:46:52 GMT

Actually Nathyn, at the time I thought I did introduce breaks into the article.

It appears that you are straining at gnats. The State, for instance, cannot exist without the the formation of an ideology that promotes The State and that ideology is formulated, either directly or indirectly, by people who express such ideological characteristics whether collectively or individually. The usage of "Statists" is just that: descriptive. The agenda of The State is a conglomeration of ideologies that form over time, intentionally or unintentionally, and are eventually expressed by a pandemic of interventions into the lives of the individual. The State however, cannot exist without a collective of individuals expressing the variety of characteristics that form a given ideology. It is not that every single person within government must share the same ideology of The State to contribute to that ideology; in many cases it is advanced by the growth of bureaucracy and the implementation of extra-constitutional regulations and acts. There are many factors and ideologies that come together to form The State and it is the combination of those factors that eventually lead to its growth, even unintentional growth.

Take for instance, Reaganism, it was touted as a return to small government, less intervention into the lives of the people and in the affairs of other nations and yet, there was a gradual transformation of Reaganism into something that is now unrecognizable by most of those who called themselves Reagan Conservatives. Whether it was intentional or not is beside the point, the Republican party was allowed to gain, therefore exploit its power to the point that it was gradually transformed into a party of neo-conservatives whose ideology is more leftist than conservative.

Concerning the Alien and Sedition Act, was it not based upon a particular ideology, formulated by a particular collective of politicians set to perpetuate their authority? If you read the writings of the Federalists and their opposition at the time, it becomes evident that it was viewed at a consolidation of power by a select group with a particular ideological base intent on not only securing their power, but excluding any who opposed their grasp for power. Of course fear was the ultimate tool used to pass the legislation and enforce its tenants, just as it is today. At the time, this act and the consolidation of power by the Federalists, was viewed as a very real conspiracy and a definite threat to the Republic. I believe the wording used at that time was: "the nation's very existence was endangered by a crowd of spies and inflammatory agents" It certainly sounds familiar, doesn't it? Some of the best expressions of this "Statist" ideology was to be found in The Massachusetts Mercury, a Federalist newspaper; while there are few examples of its contents there is a very good book called The Aurora that gives a good idea how fierce this battle was at the time. It was very much a battle between two distinct ideologies, no different that the battle we are witnessing today in this country over equally as onerous pieces of legislation and The State's grasp for power.

As far as your point that democratic nations never go to war with each other I would suggest you read your history. In the 4th and 5th Centuries BCE, you will find the City States of Athens and Syracuse, the very basis of Western democracy, attacking each other. Then you have the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE. It could also be argued that even the American Revolution was a war between democracies, especially when you consider that Britain was one of the most democratic monarchies with a parliamentary system of representation dating back to the Magna Carta.

Another war that is often overlooked are the American and Indian Wars 1776 to 1890, and if you don't believe that the Indian Nation was basically democratic then you should read about the Iroqouian Confederation; a highly advanced and complex form of democracy. How about this war between the French and Roman Republics in 1848, the newly formed democracies attacked each other.

The War Between the States was a prime example of two independent democracies at war; while it is not considered a war between two distinct democracies it must categorized as such because the federal government of the United States recognized the Confederate government as legal entity and that can be proved by any documents, such as prisoner of war pardons issued to Confederate captives expressing the Southern States officially as the Confederate States of America.

The Spanish-America War of 1898 was another example of democracies attacking each other. Even WWI could be considered a war between democracies, even though Germany was heavily influenced by the aristocracy, the Reichtag was basically democratic and controlled the budget and funding of the war. Even Hitler was democratically elected. Speaking of WWI, Finland was a democracy that fought on the side of the Axis and was heavily bombed during the war by the allies. The first war between India and Pakistan was a war between two democracies. The Croatian War of Independence against Yugoslavia in 1991 and 92, two elected democracies. The border war between Peru and Ecuador in 1995, two democracies. I could go on and on, but enough said about the fallacy that democracies don't attack each other.

Re: Peace, The Enemy of The State!

ozzy43 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:25:32 GMT

Nathyn:
You're creating a collective enemy, a "boogie man." All radical groups have them...
In every case, they deny the existence of the individual.

This is, not surprising, pure nonsense. Seriously, dude, you would do better to study and read a bit more instead of making things up as you go along out of whole cloth.

To accept that individuals can act together in a collective fashion is not at all to deny the existence of the individual. Corporation, churches, States, etc are some of the more obvious examples. Does a corporation really deny the existence of the individual??? A church? A State?

In this instance, as regards the State, the original poster is merely following in the footsteps of formidable political intellects, such as Nock, Spencer, Rothbard, Oppenheimer, not to mention Emma Goldman and even Randolph Bourne. By your easy dismissal of 'the State' as collective entity, you are in essence asserting your intellectual superiority over these and more - that you are so far above them that you can dismiss their conceptualizations as "ridiculous", that you are privy to a stupendously higher level of intellectual development than they, and that you are competent to instruct us as to why you are right, and they wrong...an astonishing assertion.

So let's examine what these thinkers had to say about the 'State' - the non-existent 'collective enemy' and 'ridiculous' 'boogie man' according to you. Then we'll compare their profundities with your posts on this board and then we can all decide which is the greater intellect and which is sophistry and nonsense:

Goldman:

That slow and arduous liberation of the individual was not accomplished by the aid of the State. On the contrary, it was by continuous conflict, by a life-and death struggle with the State, that even the smallest vestige of independence and freedom has been won. It has cost mankind much time and blood to secure what little it has gained so far from kings, tsars and governments.

The great heroic figure of that long Golgotha has been Man. It has always been the individual, often alone and singly, at other times in unity and co-operation with others of his kind, who has fought and bled in the age-long battle against suppression and oppression, against the powers that enslave and degrade him.

More than that and more significant: It was man, the individual, whose soul first rebelled against injustice and degradation; it was the individual who first conceived the idea of resistance to the conditions under which he chafed. In short, it is always the individual who is the parent of the liberating thought as well as of the deed.

Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against ‘society,’ that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man's greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development.

Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges. In other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind.

Bourne:

Wartime brings the ideal of the State out into very clear relief, and reveals attitudes and tendencies that were hidden. In times of peace the sense of the State flags in a republic that is not militarized. For war is essentially the health of the State. The ideal of the State is that within its territory its power and influence should be universal. As the Church is the medium for the spiritual salvation of man, so the State is thought of as the medium for his political salvation. Its idealism is a rich blood flowing to all the members of the body politic. And it is precisely in war that the urgency for union seems greatest, and the necessity for universality seems most unquestioned. The State is the organization of the herd to act offensively or defensively against another herd similarly organized. The more terrifying the occasion for defense, the closer will become the organization and the more coercive the influence upon each member of the herd. War sends the current of purpose and activity flowing down to the lowest level of the herd, and to its most remote branches. All the activities of society are linked together as fast as possible to this central purpose of making a military offensive or a military defense, and the State becomes what in peacetimes it has vainly struggled to become - the inexorable arbiter and determinant of men's business and attitudes and opinions.

Nock:

The State, then, whether primitive, feudal or merchant, is the organization of the political means. Now, since man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion, he will employ the political means whenever he can – exclusively, if possible; otherwise, in association with the economic means. He will, at the present time, that is, have recourse to the State's modern apparatus of exploitation; the apparatus of tariffs, concessions, rent-monopoly, and the like. It is a matter of the commonest observation that this is his first instinct. So long, therefore, as the organization of the political means is available – so long as the highly-centralized bureaucratic State stands as primarily a distributor of economic advantage, an arbiter of exploitation, so long will that instinct effectively declare itself. A proletarian State would merely, like the merchant-State, shift the incidence of exploitation, and there is no historic ground for the presumption that a collectivist State would be in any essential respect unlike its predecessors; as we are beginning to see, "the Russian experiment" has amounted to the erection of a highly-centralized bureaucratic State upon the ruins of another, leaving the entire apparatus of exploitation intact and ready for use. Hence, in view of the law of fundamental economics just cited, the expectation that collectivism will appreciably alter the essential character of the State appears illusory.

Rothbard:

The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the "organization of the political means"; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.