Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:50 pm
Briefly, in perhaps a few bullet points, please summarize for me what you perceive is the proper role of government. When is authority legitimate? Illegitimate? Why?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 5,720 • Replies: 100
No top replies

 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:59 pm
@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip;173583 wrote:
Briefly, in perhaps a few bullet points, please summarize for me what you perceive is the proper role of government. When is authority legitimate? Illegitimate? Why?


Voluntaryism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jacques Maritain
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 10:48 am
@Mister Turnip,
The purpose of the state is to protect and provide for the common good.
Mister Turnip
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 11:40 am
@Jacques Maritain,
Jacques Maritain;173824 wrote:
The purpose of the state is to protect and provide for the common good.

Ah, but at the cost of rights?
qualia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 12:00 pm
@Mister Turnip,
To maintain the monopoly on its sovereignty...
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 12:13 pm
@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip;173836 wrote:
Ah, but at the cost of rights?



It does seem that rights will be affected, if that is what you want to call them "rights". It seems that no mater who we put in a position of authority, someone will think that there rights will be violated.

I see no way for a perfect utopia. But who knows maybe things will get better.Smile
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 01:03 pm
@Night Ripper,

Private defense contractors? What if I believe that we don't need defense, because we can just talk to our enemies, would those who believe we need defense have to pay for my defense? Wouldn't everybody just say they don't believe we need defense to opt out of paying for it?
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 03:27 pm
The purpose is defined by the individuals involved; those who by assent or birth are to be governed by it. There is no single purpose - such must be left to the individuals to decide.

Like the value we place on an individual's ability to choose to what and whom they'll be subject, it must be the same for any community. As such, there is no single purpose or set of purposes that exist in any objectivity.
0 Replies
 
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 06:32 pm
@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip wrote:

Briefly, in perhaps a few bullet points, please summarize for me what you perceive is the proper role of government. When is authority legitimate? Illegitimate? Why?

Several thousand years ago, the end of the last minor ice age happened to co-occur with the presence of a land animal with a preposterously large brain known as human. Humans took advantage of the fact that the first plants to colonise a catastrophic landscape (which is what a landscape is following an ice age) are the wild grasses. They learned how to tame those wild grasses and so began the beginning of human farming.

Farming allowed the first surpluses to occur. This, in turn led to a small number of unscrupulous, lazy and ruthless humans forming gangs and going up to those who had produced a surplus and demanding, say, 10% of their surplus or they would kill them. The natural thing to do was to give them the 10% to get them to piss off. If you think about this it makes sense. Why would you risk your life for the sake of 10%? Sure, it's a pain in the arse having to give it away but its not like it is going to affect you greatly and also the costs of giving it are far outweighed by the benefit of not dying.

The trouble is, those 10 percents added up and pretty soon those ruthless gangs had amassed a huge amount of wealth relative to any other individuals. As such they were able to raise armies, build roads, invent money, a judiciary etc etc etc.

In other words, the beginning of human civilisation.

The beginning of the state

Those people have been in charge ever since

The history of the state = the history of civilisation = the history of the subjugation of the many by the few
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 10:45 pm

Authority is legitimate when it is in furtherance
of the grant of power with which government was invested.

Usurpation is illegitimate; (definitionally).





David
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 01:14 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:


Private defense contractors? What if I believe that we don't need defense, because we can just talk to our enemies, would those who believe we need defense have to pay for my defense? Wouldn't everybody just say they don't believe we need defense to opt out of paying for it?


If you don't pay the toll, you can't use the toll road. If you don't pay for health insurance, the insurance companies don't pay your medical bills. If you don't pay for private defense , you don't get defended. It seems like an obvious answer so maybe I'm missing something?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 01:23 pm
@EmperorNero,
Well you take your white flag and go talk to the Taliban...you wont mind if I dont come with you?
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 01:29 pm
@Night Ripper,
Could not put it better myself. If we dont like them, dont vote for them and if they wont go we revolt...The revolting masses endure under sufferance till revolt is essential. Governments have all the weaknesses and the strengths the human race can describe, we are what we describe.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 02:06 pm
@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip wrote:

Briefly, in perhaps a few bullet points, please summarize for me what you perceive is the proper role of government. When is authority legitimate? Illegitimate? Why?


Only one bullet point: The only purpose of the State is to take care of me! If you don't believe me, simply ask President Obama. He will explain it all to you.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 02:08 pm
@kennethamy,
Well someone has to. Your not safe left on your own.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 02:19 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:

Well someone has to. Your not safe left on your own.


But I am lucky to have Obama and other people's money to take care of me. Even if the other people don't want to pay to take care of me, Obama will make sure they do it anyway. He has the guns. In the meantime, with Obama's helpful attitude toward business, my own capacity to take care of myself is falling as fast as the stock market.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 02:30 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
If you don't pay the toll, you can't use the toll road. If you don't pay for health insurance, the insurance companies don't pay your medical bills. If you don't pay for private defense , you don't get defended. It seems like an obvious answer so maybe I'm missing something?

How would you not get defended? National defense is obviously something that we have to do collectively. If you are in the country, then you are being defended, whether you believe you need it or not. So do we force people to pay for it even if they think they don't need it?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 02:43 pm
@kennethamy,
With your liberal gun laws you have more weapons than the military. So if you fail , its because of this administration and nothing to do with Bush and his mismanagement of the banking industry? So what is he planning to give you that was not available before? Here its the lefts bad political management, in the last ten years,while in America its the present democrats fault.. Amazing how the same problem can be placed so easily on the oppositions table. Why not admit it, we all failed not restricting bankers greed. Nice to see you around by the way Kennn
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 03:36 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero wrote:
National defense is obviously something that we have to do collectively. If you are in the country, then you are being defended, whether you believe you need it or not.


When you talk about nations you're talking about imaginary lines drawn in the sand which don't really exist. If someone attacks California then Florida is no more under attack than the USA is under attack when someone attacks France. In anarchism there's no such thing as national defense. There's defense of me and my property. If the north pole gets attacked, I don't pay for it because it doesn't affect me. If the west coast gets attacked, I don't pay for it because I'm on the east coast.
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 04:36 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
When you talk about nations you're talking about imaginary lines drawn in the sand which don't really exist. If someone attacks California then Florida is no more under attack than the USA is under attack when someone attacks France. In anarchism there's no such thing as national defense. There's defense of me and my property. If the north pole gets attacked, I don't pay for it because it doesn't affect me. If the west coast gets attacked, I don't pay for it because I'm on the east coast.

National defense is more of a preemptive measure, we don't wait for being invaded and then mobilize a citizen army, we have a standing army for deterrence. Do those who don't believe that we need it still have to pay for it?
Or another example. Will a power plant that pollutes the surrounding area be forced to compensate the residents of that area? I guess I am asking whether externalities are forcedly offset, since that wouldn't be voluntary.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Purpose of the State?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/18/2019 at 12:51:21