Friendly - I'm not sure exactly what type I am, I'm sort of an individualist anarcho-communist. (as opposed to the normal collectivist anarcho-communist).

Thucy - "I argue that even current states do not possess that authority. If Obama orders the troops to start killing all the Somalis living inside US borders, they might do it. They might not. In the end Obama is a just a guy with a title."
Yes, the soldiers might not do it. But they will also be arrested if they don't. That is where the state's authority comes from. Having the ability to throw people in prison if they don't do what the state says.

And you are correct Thucydides, in saying that Obama's authority is not strictly speaking absolute. But according to it's own terms, the State makes no provision for any authority other than it's own. That is what makes it the State. And the best and perhaps only way to stop State power is to resist in the simplist fashion possible; to not comply.

The State exists after all, because numerous people equivocate about it's negative effect on humanity and comply with it. That doesn't mean however, that the state is somehow built on some sort of consensual network.

Coercion requires aquiesence, but it is not free aquiesence.

So, what you're saying is that the state draws power from the ability to inflict harm (imprison) it's people? I think by that definition, the state isn't much of a good thing at all. (minimalistically speaking).

@Eden
"A "right" is effectively an acknowledgment of one body's justification for an action by another body, is it not?"

What? No. Your post makes no sense at all...

Sorry guys your whole arguments against the "state" are infantile or just prejudice, i am out here until something smart is coming up.

"What? No. Your post makes no sense at all..."

Then explain. What is a "right," in your view?

"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."

Didn't realize Max Webber was an old guy since I had never heard of him. My bad. Guess Rand was stealing from him. Poo on her. (Although it wouldn't be the first time... she did the same thing to Margret Mead)

"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."

If that is your definition of legitimate than your quote is wrong, because they don't have a monopoly. I can use physical force in self defense, and it is legitimate, therefore they do not have a monopoly.

A monopoly doesn't necessary mean you are always the one doing something, merely that you control or regulate in some way all instances of it occuring.

Self defense, for example, is regulated in our courts at behest of the State. According to the State, you have legitimacy to use force in self-defense only because the State and it's laws allow you to.

In any case I believe a more specific definition would say 'coercive force', as that is the implication.

Do you seriously think the State does not reserve for itself sole legitimacy on the use of force? Really?

"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."

Do I also need to demonstrate what happens in cases where the circumference of a circle is equal to four times the diameter, as opposed to merely 3.14159... times the diameter? Because we can argue fantasy systems of thought all we want and never get anywhere. Behavior is what seems to me to be the important benchmark. And given that no peaceful, educated, equitable, and prosperous society has developed under anarchic circumstances, nor has such a society transitioned to an anarchic system of political organization, I'd say that the state is a more successful form of organization given our tendencies. Yes, I realize this is at least somewhat tautological, but we're talking about politics here. Divorcing it from human behavior and debating it in the ideal seems to me a completely fruitless exercise.

CM---

your example of imprisoning the mutinous soldiers falls down if you also assume the judges refuse to judge and police refuse to enforce the law.

a nationwide coup, essentially. which is something that could happen at any moment, for innumerable reasons that we could only speculate about until it actually happened.

it is an interested point about the state making no provision for any authority other than its own, though i would argue that this is not really the case.

i have a few examples of why it's not:

1) democracies. democratic states (in theory at least) acknowledge the power of the people to upset the government. the people of the united states, if they were so inclined, could organize themselves in such a way as to actually literally completely rewrite the constitution or amend it in any number of ways, as was done to the articles of confederation.

so i don't see how that does not allow for another "authority," that of the people, namely.

2) Other states. Every state acknowledges the powers of other states and their authority. you may say "yes but they are all a part of a club of states." Maybe so but that is a very loose definition, since there are all kinds of states. See point 1.

3) Non-state actors such as the UN or the IMF or the WTO have power and authority which in many cases states willingly submit to. In this way states, at least by de facto, submit to and acknowledge authority other than their own.

For that matter, you can put corporations on the list of "non-state actors"

I sympathise strongly with Anarcho-Capitalism, and tend towards that end of the spectrum myself. The only 3 areas where I see a major issue occurring are policing, defence and judiciary, in order of severity.

Policing is a dubious one, since the majority of all security workers in the UK (by an enormous factor) are already privately employed, and the conviction rates for the offenses I would actually police against (Violent crime, theft and fraud, more or less) see conviction rates of below 10% anyway. Given this, the only issue with anarchy is giving the impression that you won’t get caught, rather than the fact of it. Private security etc. Perhaps should be able to remove that impression.

The other two I have not looked at extensively, unfortunately.
“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?”

Is the role of the state legitimate? Not at present.
Is the social contract a legitimate justification? No, since contracts imply consent, and there is no consent involved in my being in a society.
What about God? Surely we have established secularism securely enough not to be concerned about this one?
What about the defense by results? Our current government in the UK and US is probably worse than nothing... and anyway, I am not a consequentialist.
If not the State, then what? Would have to be private action. Basically, you would disperse the right to use force rather than have it concentrated in one place. As I say, ensuring just use of said force and collective use of force is potentially difficult.


Somalia, compared to other nations in Africa, and pre-“anarchy” Somalia, is doing pretty well... that’s not to be idealistic and call it a utopia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Somalia
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25433&Cr=Somalia&Cr1=

Secondly, there is governance in the form of tribes, so it is not really anarchy so much as polyarchy, which also results in limits on the power of government.

@krellin
“ if they are cooperating in order to survive - they have formed some form of "state" to guide their coexistence”

No they haven’t, did you read FS’ definitions in his first reply?

@rlumley
“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”
Max Weber(1864-1920)
Ayn Rand(1905-1982)
hmmmm

Walk out on to any playground, where the teachers are out of view. The biggest, baddest kid will rule the playground if he so chooses. There is NO such thing as the absence of state, because even in a anarachy those that can wield influence, will, whether by force or by blackmail (you want x? then I need y from you?). A true utopian anarchy is just a ridiculous figment of fiction...it doesn't exist because it flies in the face of the nature of man. Sure...a few of you on here *claim* you could be a good anarchist...but even in so doing - unless you are going to do *everything* on your own - you will bargain and cooperate...which implies rules and order...and thus the beginnings of a state.

http://blog.mises.org/13218/the-24-types-of-authoritarians/

@Thucy, the objection I have to the state is that it acts on people without their consent, but rather at the point of a gun. It forces the paying of taxes, it forces the compliance to regulation.

The only thing you are allowed to force is respect for human rights, and human rights are limited to: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; or, in other words, the ownership of property and the ownership of self.

"There is NO such thing as the absence of state, because even in a anarachy those that can wield influence, will, whether by force or by blackmail (you want x? then I need y from you?). A true utopian anarchy is just a ridiculous figment of fiction."

Firstly, do you suppose this bandit will wield anything like the power of the modern state, or do you think that he might encounter more resistance?

Secondly, there have been some examples of anarchy, the classic one being the Icelandic Commonwealth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

This was a society with co-operation, but no government. krellin, have you ever heard of anarcho-capitalism?

"My question for you is: can we live without this seemingly ubiquitous feature of human exitence?" Some will, some won't. It won't be pretty.

"And do we want to?" Not me.

diplomat, it simply isn't true that it is ubiquitous.

Also, lest it be missed: ***I Am Not An Anarchist***

The question of the need for a state has been a longstanding one in the Western Canon. There have been reams of discourse and literature on the subject. I see some familiar names and books being quoted, but I think the discussion on this thread is approaching the subject from the wrong direction. Before considering human existence under the state it is necessary to consider human existence in the state of nature and without a social contract. This itself is rather problematic as there have been many constructions of different descriptions of states of nature (Hobbes and Rousseau, for instance present two entirely different pictures of the state of nature). I guess what I am trying to say is that before you comment, go read a little.

@Ghost - Nice link...the first thing I saw upon scanning the page was "Court System" as one of the headings. Uhhh....hardly anarchist, hardly a stateless society if there is a court system to punish. Whether the state is made up of a few individuals or the entire collective, it is still an authority that makes and enforces rules.

As far as a "bandit" (????) in my utopian society wielding the power of a "state"...no....but simply because my local government does not wield as much power as the state government which does not wield as much power as the Federal government doesn't mean it isn't a "state". Which I suppose is my problem, in that I am viewing the definition of state differently than you. The "state", in my mind, is anything wielding influence (without my option) over me and which is consented to by the majority around me (or a sufficiently powerful minority). Thus, in a society where a "bandit" withhold the needed food from others, he in effect is a state unto himself in that he can wield influence over others. I'm sure you don't like my definition....but it's what I'm going with. the size of the state is meaningless to me...it's what they can do to me that defines them.

@ava - I have not read any of those lofty fellows...but, just as the Supremne Court says they can't define pornography, but they know it when they see it, I don't need an egghead to define the state for me when it starts telling me what to do... :P

"Do you seriously think the State does not reserve for itself sole legitimacy on the use of force? Really?"

No. I don't. I think the State defines what is legitimate. Which brings us back to my original point.

rlumley is absolutely right. The state defines allowable use of personal force - that's why people can defend themselves with guns, fist, whatever. If we had to wait for the state to provide force for our protection, criminals would have a completely free hand. It is only because you can use force in self-defense that criminals don't run completely and utterly free.

Lol the internet, counter-intuitively, really is a haven and developing ground for extremist views.

Mellow out yall.

@Ghost
"Given this, the only issue with anarchy is giving the impression that you won’t get caught, rather than the fact of it.Private security etc. Perhaps should be able to remove that impression."
What? Seriously this is nonsense again...

"is the role of the state legitimate? Not at present."
What state do you mean? I don´t know any state in Europe that is not legitimated...

"Is the social contract a legitimate justification? No, since contracts imply consent, and there is no consent involved in my being in a society."
The social contract is an idea, it needs no consent.

I am still waiting on an explanaition in wich cases anarchy is "better" than western democracy.

krellin, really? In my country, we don't have criminals running around freely, we don't have people dieing on the streets, and our gun laws are quite strict. Most people are generally happy, as long you are careful, you won't get attacked.

Anyway, I hate the state. It exists to give corporations the legitimacy to continue as they are, helps them through military pressure/gunboat diplomacy/dollar diplomacy, and is the tool of the rich and powerful everywhere.

Thucydides: the GIFT (Great Internet Fuckwad Theory), and maybe the internet attracts extremist people because they can spout their views to an audience that is more likely to listen to them. Also people are less likely to associate with extremist views in public, because it makes them look crazy.
P.S. I think it's "y'all", that apostrophe is important :)

@TGM: "ubiquitous" simply quoting the OP. Would "almost ubiquitous" make you feel better?

@Krellin:
“@Ghost - Nice link...the first thing I saw upon scanning the page was "Court System" as one of the headings. Uhhh....hardly anarchist, hardly a stateless society if there is a court system to punish. Whether the state is made up of a few individuals or the entire collective, it is still an authority that makes and enforces rules. ...The "state", in my mind, is anything wielding influence (without my option) over me “

When I stop you from mugging me, I wield influence over you. If you think self defence is making you a government, then you are clearly just wrong.

Furthermore, you are just defining anarchy into absurdity. That doesn’t get away from the position proposed by anarcho-capitalists, which, whether you consider it genuine anarchy or not, is at least a legitimate position to hold. Unless you want to move on from arguing definitions, there is no real value in the argument.

@Miro Klose

“What? Seriously this is nonsense again...”

I am sorely tempted just to write “Fuck You” in response to this. You clearly haven’t anything to say at the moment. If I rob you, I have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting caught. If I don’t botch it (wear gloves, make sure you’re out, avoid any security & choose my house carefully) I could probably go for something like 40 burglaries before I would expect a conviction. The only reason that policing is actually a deterrent is that people think it is more effective than it actually is.
‘"is the role of the state legitimate? Not at present."
What state do you mean? I don´t know any state in Europe that is not legitimated...’

Every single one has no moral mandate to infringe on its citizen’s rights to liberty and property except in the case of criminals (and even then only those who committed violent crimes, theft or fraud). That is what I mean.

“The social contract is an idea, it needs no consent.”

In which case it is not a contract. A contract is an agreement between parties, and, to quote wiki, “The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty”

However, at no point did I make the choice to give up my sovereignty.


@diplomat, much better, more accurate :)

...no answer? I presume he had nothing with which to refute my statement.

@ Friendly Sword: "Well, one admittedly clunky method of reducing the power of the State is through reducing it's size"

Not relevant. This would still be a state, just a smaller one. Your OP talks about living WITHOUT the state, which is very different.


"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.)"

/fail. The environmental and poverty problems in Somalia (and, perhaps more importantly, the inability of the Somali people to solve them) are directly linked to the lack of a functioning state.


@ rlumley: Max Weber "is quoting Ayn rand".

Epic, epic fail. Thank you, rlumley, this gave me a good laugh.


@ Miro Klose: "Ayn Rand is an idiot"

Miro Klose +1


@ Thucydides: "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" "

That is a step on the road to forming (or being part of) a state, but the three examples are NOT states. An organised town or village is only a "state" if there is no other legitimate statelike entity in that geographical area. An individual town in the UK is not a state, because the UK itself is the state.

@ Friendly Sword: "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."

Surely the only way to prevent the resumption of coercive power would require the people to be sufficiently organised to resist any individual or group attempting to exert such power. In order for the people to so organise themselves, they would need an agreed system for collective decision-making. I would argue that the people, organising themselves in this system, would constitute a form of state. No?