Where does the state recieve its power?

The State receives it's power from many places :

1. Society's Needs
-including, keeping records (of ownership, history etc), as an arbiter or disputes, as a keeper of the peace, as an organiser of resources, as a builder of shared infrastructure...and other state provided services - health, education, arts funding, entertainment etc
2. Through hope, fear and manipulation (politics)
3. Through fear of punishment (police, courts, corrective services)
4. Through military means

i forget about propaganda.

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . [/i]

I left that under politics and manipulation.

..............

Setanta, I don't know that I'd call their powers 'just'. In many matters it's fairly apt, but in civil / monetary matters justice is a rather relative term at the top end of town.

You miss the point. The authors are saying that the powers which governments exercise which are just derive from the consent of the governed. That is not to say that all of the powers that governments exercise are just, only that no power exercised by government can be just unless consented to by the governed.

Dear Set,

Once again I find you mired in your narrow view. Who are the "governed" that concent must be derived from to form a "just" government? Are they the CEOs and shareholders of monopoly corporations? The poor? The media managers?

The Founding Fathers found no place for Native Americans, Slaves, women or any white male under 25 who did not own property. Once upon a time, the Pope ruled by mandate from Heaven, then Kings ruled as God's chosen, then Calvinist Parliamentarians ruled as God's chosen, then fraternity and reason rationalized rule. The consent of the governed idea goes farther back than the Magna Carta, and when it was tried (Athens, Rome, Venice, Hansiatic League, Switzerland, US France, Russia etc.) it only survived as long as the "governed" remained educated and diligent in the face of those running the government. Thus a "just government" is one that encourages questioning of its authority to govern by the governed. Too often, as at present, the governed who hold the nation's wealth conspire with those who direct the government to dummy up the rest of the governed and rule through fear.

Blucher

Mired in my narrow view? You have no idea what i think. I merely pointed out what is written in the Declaration of Independence. I have not stated what i think to be the source of governmental power.

You have your ax to grind, and that's fine with me. But every time you take a swipe at me with it, you are just making a feeble breeze, because you can't hit what you can't see.

I suspect you're one of those people who needs someone to despise and attack. Help yourself, i've never suffered from having electrons flung at me.

Formally speaking, the state's power comes from law, for the state is itself a legal entity. The state's 'power is, technically speaking, a tool for the enforcement of legislation. This exercise of power consists of official acts by "officers" of the law. Such "legitimate" use of power is considered a monopoly of the state.
Another way of referring to such "officers" is to emphasize their "authority." They are, indeed, authorities, and they are legally constrained to exercise power in limited prescribed ways. Now this is a matter of ideals; the actual behavior of authorities sometimes reeks of unofficial human behavioral secretions. There is a difference between the unofficial exercise of power in the sense of raw force and the official exercise of power in the sense of authoritative actions. An armed robber has the power (force) to coercise you, but he has no authority to do so. An officer of the law has the authority to do so within the boundaries of law.
etc. etc. etc.

Informally speaking, power can take many unofficial forms. But that has little to do with the State; it has to do with the unofficial manipulations of individuals and interest groups.

so a government is an idea spread through use of force.

awesome

Or, the idea of legitimate force, power derived from the will of the governed, is the legal basis for Government. Now sometimes the "will" of the people is not in fact authentic; it may be coerced or feigned. And it may not reflect their actual interests, as in Marx' notion of "false consciousness."

False consent
Dear Nobody,

Yes the consent of the governed is important and according to Set and his electron chasing (our planet is an electron), it is possible to have a just (and therefor legitimate as defined by some) government without the consent of the governed. I am speaking of the benevolent dictator/king. Julius Cesar pandered to the mob and lost his life for it. Napoleon is still revered in France. King Arthur of legend ruled Camelot justly.

I am not advocating dictatorship because it is dependent on a single mortal whose 'just' government passes with their death. But it is possible to rule (even for a short time) via decree rather than through legislation within the "law". It is very expedient in time of war or disaster (popular fear) when the governed give up rights for security.

There is also a disconnect at times, between political democracy and economic democracy. Thus, where the governed elect their representatives, the candidates who have media coverage and funding to pay for it are all the masses are exposed to when choosing a leader (in ancient Rome or the USA). Thus in the US example, the choice for leadership fall to the left and right wing of the capitalist interests. Socialists, communists, fascist or independents are belittled, and excluded from debates and any real exposure by a media who is dependent on their corporate (Gen. Electric, Disney Murdoch) wishes. Polling answers are easily manipulated by how the poll's questions are asked.

Further, the ever increasing coziness between 'big business' and 'big government' is a dangerous drift toward 'friendly fascism'. Union busting and out sourcing one result.

Hey, Check below:

Blucher, I agree. Good statement.
But lay off my man, Setanta. He gives us so many valuable ideas and information that we can overlook his lesser contributions.

Yes
Yes, discussion is more productive than personal attacks, no?

Re: Yes


Not familiar with irony, i take it.

Re: False consent


This is a lie, i made no such statement. Therefore, you are a liar.

I was hilariously amused, however, to see you claim that our planet is an electron. Got some evidence, or were just peddling bullshit, which seems to be your strong suit?