Political Theory

Re: State and governments

DanielMuff — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:48:33 GMT

You're welcome!

Re: State and governments

Bostwick — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:21:39 GMT

Forgot about this thread.

Good find!

Re: State and governments

DanielMuff — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:50:36 GMT

This.

Re: State and governments

Conza88 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:55:45 GMT

Anatomy of the State by Murray N. Rothbard - anyone?

Re: State and governments

basic income guy — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:42:08 GMT

Differences between State, Nation and Government.

What is the difference between State and Nation?

In political science, a "nation" refers to a group of people who feel bound into a single body by shared culture, values, folkways, religion and/or language. A "state" just refers to a patch of land with a sovereign government. States often coincide with nations (and are called "nation-states," but not always. States that overlap multiple nations tend to have civil wars; states that exclude parts of a nation tend to have wars with the neighboring state(s) that contain the rest of the nation.

source:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_state_and_nation

What is the difference between State and Government:

__A government (from the Greek Κυβερνήτης kubernites - steersman, governor, pilot, or rudder) is an organization that has the power to make and enforce laws for a certain territory. There are several definitions on what exactly constitutes a government. In its broadest sense, "govern" means the power to administrate, whether over an area of land, a set group of people, or an association.

__A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is often important to the establishment of its statehood, although some theories do not make this a requirement - for instance, the Montevideo Convention. ...

Source(s):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

Re: State and governments

liberty student — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:43:02 GMT

Earth Corp was just something I made up. Like a global corporation.

And Starfleet, well if you have ever watched Star Trek.... But seriously, Starfleet is an example of a global/universal defense and scientific organization that is not nation or race specific.

Re: State and governments

Stranger — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:36:21 GMT

liberty student:

Ok, thx. Isn't that basically the globalists plan? To have a multi-lateral technocracy that answers to no state or collection of states, and pursues it's own agenda?

Sorta like Earth Corp. or Starfleet?

I don't know what those things are.

Re: State and governments

liberty student — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:02:18 GMT

Ok, thx. Isn't that basically the globalists plan? To have a multi-lateral technocracy that answers to no state or collection of states, and pursues it's own agenda?

Sorta like Earth Corp. or Starfleet?

Re: State and governments

Stranger — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:51:03 GMT

liberty student:

Could it raise taxes or create new ones through another branch of the bureaucracy?

That really depends on what kinds of powers it has been delegated by the governments. Normally the taxes are raised by governments, but in the case of the ECB, for example, it has full discretion to set target interest rates.

Re: State and governments

liberty student — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:46:00 GMT

Could it raise taxes or create new ones through another branch of the bureaucracy?

Sorry if these questions seem to simple. First, I am trying to better understand this, and second I figured we should just talk past the trolls and salvage this discussion for something fruitful (like my increased knowledge)

Re: State and governments

Stranger — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:32:29 GMT

liberty student:

But with no civilian command, how would such a bureaucracy fund itself?

From the taxes it was granted.

Re: State and governments

liberty student — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:06:07 GMT

Stranger:

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.

If I am understanding this correctly, you're saying that a state can exist without a head, and likewise a head can exist without a state. Seems reasonable to me.

But with no civilian command, how would such a bureaucracy fund itself?

Re: State and governments

Juan — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:01:25 GMT

I don't need to argue in order to prove self-evident propositions.

Re: State and governments

Stranger — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:53:28 GMT

Juan:
DBratton:
That statement was was wrong when L14 made it though.
Take it up with Louis XIV ?

What is wrong actually is the ridiculous notion that so called royal governments are not states.

Waiting to hear your argument.

Re: State and governments

Brainpolice — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:49:38 GMT

Only through the thin film of your usual tactics of creating strawmen and disrupting thread after thread with the same antagonistic foolishness.

I haven't erected any strawmen, I've taken his claims at face value and drawn out their implications. He is claiming that pre-modern states were not in fact states. That's not a strawman, that's precisely what he's saying at face value.

Please stop trolling BP. It is getting tiresome when people insist upon sidetracking every discussion, without contributing anything except strawmen and semantic arguments.

I never troll. In order for me to be trolling, I'd (1) have to actually not believe what I'm saying and (2) have to be deliberately digging for an emotional response. None of that is true, I'm being completely genuine.

You may view it as side-tracking discussion, but it seems to me that you'd call anything that isn't absolute agreement side-tracking the discussion and trolling. Sorry, things don't work that way in real disucssions.

In fact, if anyone is sidetracking the discussion it is you, since I was previously making intellectual arguments about the topic and you turned it into a personalized matter. And the original poster is simply stone-walling discussion rather than sidetracking.