First off all, what is the State? Max Weber says that the state consists of an entity with a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory".

Others would specifiy that the State refers to a set of governing institutions that derive authority from a specific mandate (whether that be God, the tip of a sword, or the 'will' of the people). The degree of influence exercised by the state may vary by example. The Egyptian Pharoah for example, exercized a more direct influence on the economic affairs of his State than does modern America (ie. through slave workers), but the latter has a more broad role in defining and regulating society (ie. legislation surrounding lifestyle choices).

Some say that the State is derived from civil society, that organized existence naturally leads to a system of governance and organization (eg. Hobbes or Kant). Marxists sometimes draw no distinction between society and State, while anarchist thinkers argue that civil society can function without an athoritative state altogether, and that it's existence is as unfortunate as it is unecessary.

Our contemporary is governed my overlapping institutions of power, but the primary set of blocks take the form of sovereign States that (generally) recognize eachother, whilst awknowleging individual supremacy (taking into consideration the degree to which States like Russia, France or the US readily interfere with the domestic affairs of foreign (nation)States).

Most importantly, while it has its critics, the legitimacy of the State is recognized by nearly all members of modern 'Democracies' and authoritarian regimes alike, while the instruments of media, education, and the economy are often hard to seperate from it.

Though Michel Foucault questioned the relevance of the State in it's centralized Westphalian interpretation, it is clear that potent power is still exercized in the name of sovereign government, and that the interlinking channels of power do still run through institutions connected with the WHite House, Downing St., etc.

So what do you think? Is the role of the State legitimate? Is the social contract a legitimate justification? What about God? What about the defense by results? (That without the state we would just be worse off) If not the State, then what?

:)

Do we want to? No. I think a brief glance at Somalia should put paid to the idea that a stateless society would be an improvement. Fact is, the state has such a competitive advantage over every other form of social organization we've yet come up with that it seems quite difficult to see how eliminating it would work.

What is the alternative, anarchy? :)

I'd go with the State then - the Somalia example above is a very good one.

"it seems quite difficult to see how eliminating it would work."

Well, one admittedly clunky method of reducing the power of the State is through reducing it's size; devolution (or State's Rights for Americans). Economies of scale mean that California is less likely to invade Iraq than the USA, even though, strictly speaking, it probably could.

Additionally, there are a multitude of ways one can challenge the dominance of the State, through providing alternative media, extricating oneself from the State economy, plain old resistance.... but no comfortable ways, I will admit.

As for Somalia, I don't think the primary problem is the lack of an authoritarian regime, I think it is just too many of them (plus all of the environmental shit, poverty, fundamentalism, etc.)

It would take more than just the elimination of centralized government to end up like Somalia. :/

Sure, there are plenty of ways to challenge the dominance of the state. But they have the same problem the Marxist proscription for the end of capitalism runs into. In order to succeed the state, any movement will need to organize hierarchically. And power is traditionally something we seem to have a problem yielding.

I would argue that Somalia's issues stem almost directly from the absense of a functional state for well nigh unto a generation now.

Can we live without it?

Yeah. I mean... in the sense that not everyone would die if it went away immediately.

Some people would stagger onward.

Would we want to though? I think not. Even if it was immediately abolished I do not think there would be an absence of the state for long, as people would quickly re-establish one. It's human instinct to appoint leaders in my opinion.

What tribe has no chief?

No. Find me a tribe of 8 grass-wearing canibals in the middle of a jungle and - if they are cooperating in order to survive - they have formed some form of "state" to guide their coexistence. Human beings are social creatures and individually weak by nature, and as such are prone to impose the necessary evil of "state" upon themselves in order to survive and flourish.

Benevolent dictatorship WOOOOOO

Stop stop stop...first what powers of the states should be taken away?
I don´t want to life without law and be punished be criminals all the day!
I want public health care, i don´t wanna people die on simple thinks like flue or an infected appendix!

I don't think I can really add anything that hasn't been said. Is it *possible* to live in a state of anarchy? Yes. Would it be considered an improvement by the vast majority of the people? Hell no. I freely acknowledge that there are flaws in any system of government you wish to name, but the thought that we can all live happy huggy lives without someone *ever* deciding to organize a group of like minded individuals and impose control on the population is laughable. One response may be 'well, passive resistance works', but passive resistance only works against people who are influenced by guilt/shame/public opinion. If it's just some jackoff, he's going to just keep killing people until the sheep get in line - and how, exactly, is that different than today, except that the people would have even *less* ability to influence their lives?

I didn't read anything but this: "Max Weber says that the state consists of an entity with a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"."

That's a terrible definition. First of all, he is quoting Ayn rand, who said "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims," and he's not giving her credit. Secondly, the definition is ultimately circular, because it begs the question of what is legitimate. Legitimate is whatever the state makes it, so you can't use legitimacy to define the state.

Ayn Rand is an idiot, who do you think develops and protects laws, and who enforces them? It´s the state...

... Which is precisely why the state is the biggest threat to mans rights?

?

In a world with no real standards, you have to arbitrarily say someone is the official standard-enforcer.

That's the state.

without the state the would be no mans rigths...

Rlumley, don't be an ass-hat.

The claim to legitimacy is a benchmark by which States judge thsemlves, and by which others judge a State. The definition of legitimacy is "having the justification for a course of action" or somethign similar to that, which I am sure you can agree with. Whether or not the State ought to have it is an open question, but it certainly is an integral part; thus deserving a part in the definition.

Also, Max Weber is quoting Ayn Rand!? Wtf? I don't think when Weber was writing theses on the nature of governance and Capitalism in the 1880s he was aware he was quoting her. Jeepers. You should let him know.

Guys, the State is *not* simply an amalgamation of people working together. A State is the assumption of absolute authority and sovereign. People can exist in other forms, trust me.

A farming commune where decisions are reached by consensus (or even majority rule)? Not a State. Two kids working together on a project? Not a State. A small town that punishes a criminal by ejecting him from the community? Certainly has the workings of a State, but still hasn't assumed it's full form.

Even if we can't live peacably without some sort of rule of law, this does not require the infrastructure of something as coercive as what exists now.

Max Weber quoted Ayn Rand? That´s so ridiculous i must have overread it :-)
When weber died Ayn Rand still was 14-15 years old^^

A farming commune where decisions are reached by consensus (or even majority rule)? Not a State. Two kids working together on a project? Not a State. A small town that punishes a criminal by ejecting him from the community? Certainly has the workings of a State, but still hasn't assumed it's full form.

No, all of those are states except the two kids, because it's only 2 kids.

You bring in a third kid and leaders emerge, and so does a fledgling "state"

In any case, the living conditions of most of southern Somalia actually improved after the fall of government until the Islamic Courts came in and the Ethiopians invaded.

Comparing Somalia to the West is silly in any case, for two reasons; firstly, it doesn't even represent anarchy as a system, merely chaotic as opposed to organized in a non-coercive manner. Secondly, it's in Africa! It is much more relevant to compare Somalia to similarly faring countries before it slipped into chaos, and if you do, the comparisons can actually be somewhat favourable (assuming you are looking at the welfare of the poorest 90% of the populace).

Bleh.

And regarding the other stock 'I am not willing to contemplate Anarchism arguments':

I frankly don't understand why everyone has such a hard-on for centralized political authority merely because other forms of (once again) centralized political authority are much worse.

What you need to demonstrate is that absence of coercive power in a balanced competitive market necessarily leads to a resumption of coercive power. I think it can, and often does in contexts of desperation and inequality, but given a peaceful, educated, equitable and prosperous society, I don't think it is even likely.

Thucydides, a leader doesn't make a State unless infrastructure exists to support his claim to absolute and sole authority (which he may share with a fourth kid). Until that point, the State has a potential to form obviously, but it has not. This is the crucial point.

Thucy, to demonstrate more clearly; when one kid can prevent another kid from playing with his toys and has enforcers to make that certain, then you have a nascent State, because a monopoly of power that need not be checked or legitimized according to its own rules has been established.

If people are prevented from acting in thier own interest using arguments that claim to be for thier own interest, then you know something is up and the dream is over.

"without the state the would be no mans rigths..."

A "right" is effectively an acknowledgment of one body's justification for an action by another body, is it not? What then does it matter if the acknowledgment of justification doesn't exist, if the acknowledger doesn't exist, either? There would, of course, be problems if the acknowledgment didn't exist, but the should-be-acknowledger *did* -- but in the political state of affairs being discussed, the acknowledger also does not exist, so it's a moot point.

I think you all know what I'm going to say, but I am not particularly in the mood for an argument. However, I will say that the state is a horrible institution. Ivo at some point had pointed out that the absence of the state equals anarchy, and gave Somalia as an example. It is true that the absence of government is anarchy, however, there are different types of anarchy. Somalia = bad anarchy. My ideal system = good anarchy.
So anyway, I don't feel like arguing, so I'm out.

Noooo please stay Conservative Man! I love critics of State power. :)

Though I must say, what a bizarre pseudonym for a professed anarchist! ;)

Friendly - I didn't become an anarchist until after I joined here.

I presume you must be fairly young then. ^^

What kind of anarchist would you say that you are, if you do not mind me asking?