The Purpose of the State?

Quote:

Are you willing to point a gun at me just because I disagree with you and don't feel like giving my money away?

Doesn't "your" money derive from the existence of the state? How would you get money on your own?

Yes--but that is a political decision to say what "own" means and is circular. Of course you own the table if ownership is defined as we define it. Some may prefer to say that you have the use of it and to get it you give up the use of other things.

And that people earn their money depends on how you define earn.

I don't eat the steak if I mean by "eat" smell, and if I mean by "steak" flowers. Then what I am saying is that I smell the flowers.

edgarblythe wrote:

The primary purpose of state is to protect the rich from the poor.

I think the question was what it should be, in your opinion.

I would agree with edgar's statement that the primary purpose of the state is to protect the rich from the poor but I would add to it that it is advantageous to the rich to provide for the poor to the extent that the poor don't get mad enough to use their superior numbers to redress their grievances as happened in 1789 in France.

That's as maybe but this civilisation is a very long way from having a population which has any interest in revolution. The poor of this civilisation are richer than the rich were in other civilisations. One only need imagine a Pharoe with a toothache or an Emperor with gout to see that. I can see Henry the VIII offering half his kingdom for a second-hand Toyoto.

Your question implies an underlying assumption. Arguably, the way you have framed it implies that you think the state is capable of being something other than an interface in the service of ruling elites that lies between them and the rest of the populace.

You question is a bit like asking, "But, if a shark was not a carnivorous fish, what should it be?"

If one's underlying assumption is that the state is, by definition, nothing more than a tool of whoever is currently running the show, then your question is meaningless.

In fact, since in a democracy (not other States) the government rules by the consent of the governed, you are mistaken.

Quote:

Are you willing to point a gun at me just because I disagree with you and don't feel like giving my money away?

Doesn't "your" money derive from the existence of the state? How would you get money on your own?

kennethamy wrote:

In fact, since in a democracy (not other States) the government rules by the consent of the governed, you are mistaken.

I never consented to be governed. I suppose you think a desert island on which 2 people vote to control a 3rd person is a democracy as well?

Or why not have all three people vote?

kennethamy wrote:

Or why not have all three people vote?

All 3 did vote, 2 voted to rob the 3rd and the 3rd voted against it. Majority wins. The 3rd person gets robbed, democratically.

Yes, and that is why democracies like the US have provisions against the tyranny of the majority.

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, and that is why democracies like the US have provisions against the tyranny of the majority.

So you're saying that the majority of people couldn't vote to change the Constitution?

In theory, but not in practice. Anyway, as things stand now, there is protection for minority views in the United States by law. And in most of the Western democracies in other ways.