Hello Socialism!

[Guest]

Are you trying to increase it [force]?

Uhhh, no.  Is this an argument of some sort?

I assert that it is more civilized to try to reduce the initiation of force than to try to increase it. Therefore, I try to reduce it through persuasion.

Where do you live that isn't "nature"?

I was referring to a Hobbesian "state of nature".  Surely you know that, and you are turning to petty semantics again.

I guess you are a statist, then.

From my perspective, it's not black and white.  If it helps you sleep at night, then feel free to call me a "statist" and I'll call you a "utopian idealist with his/her head in the clouds".

I'd rather you didn't call me a "utopian idealist with his/her head in the clouds". I have never claimed that anarchy would eliminate all pain and suffering from human interaction. Also, I have refrained from calling you a "violent, murdering thief".  "Statist" is a proper, neutral definition for someone that advocates a state.

Regarding your definitions of "government" and "state", let's decide on a definition from the dictionary, how about that? Instead of one from a libertarian propagandist.  

Main Entry: gov·ern·ment
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r-m&nt, -v&rn-
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 : the office, authority, or function of governing
3 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : RULE
4 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
5 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b cap : the executive branch of the U.S. federal government c : the prosecution in a criminal case in its capacity as agents of the political unit

Main Entry: state
Function: noun
often attrib 1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government see also compelling state interest at INTEREST 3a, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
2 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country : the sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations)
3 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. see also STATE LAW b : the territory of a state

I choose these:

(government) 1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control.

(state) 1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory;

Quibbling about which is better a "state" or a "government" is just silly semantics.  If you want a group of people governed in any way at all (which you don't, I realize that)

Yes, I do.

, then there is both a government and a state.  The two go hand in hand.  Self-government doesn't involve a state, because it's just one person, but when we're talking about large groups of people, then by definition, they are a state if there is a government involved (in the accepted meanings of words).

Let's say you go to church on Easter. Everyone files in quietly, takes a seat, listens attentively and sings when asked. If they don't, no police arrest them, no one takes them to jail or kills them in a shootout. If they don't give to the collection plate, no one takes their wallet. At most, they will be asked to leave the group. I don't see why a society couldn't operate like that.

 When I argue the difference between "state" and "government" this is the distinction about which I speak. After all, the two words exist.

[RaggedClaws]

mercedes, I apologize if I seemed a bit hostile, but things are, well, a bit tense around here.  I hope no offense was taken by my tone, I meant no disrespect.

Let's say you go to church on Easter. Everyone files in quietly, takes a seat, listens attentively and sings when asked. If they don't, no police arrest them, no one takes them to jail or kills them in a shootout. If they don't give to the collection plate, no one takes their wallet. At most, they will be asked to leave the group. I don't see why a society couldn't operate like that.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree, because I see government as a necessary evil.  I believe that government needs to be very seriously limited, as power begets power, and that no limited government will stay limited for long, so revolutions must occur at regular intervals (such revolutions don't necessarily have to be violent).  I think the framers of the US Constitution are in my camp on this point.

It is my contention that in the absence of government, power will be consolidated and wielded by some group.  This has proven to be the case throughout history, which is why all of the great nations of the world currently have and always have had governments/states in place.  Because of this, it seems a good idea to create a formal apparatus of government that is as self-limiting as possible.  I do believe that smaller tribal-based societies can survive in seeming anarchy, but only if they stay isolated from other societies and they stay small.

[griz]

By your own definition, a state being "a politically organized body of people"; wouldn't being politically organized consitute a government?  I know this sounds like picking nits, but I see no practical distinction and I'm trying to understand what you see as a difference.

[Guest]

mercedes, I apologize if I seemed a bit hostile, but things are, well, a bit tense around here.  I hope no offense was taken by my tone, I meant no disrespect.

O.K. I hope "things" get more relaxed for you.

Let's say you go to church on Easter. Everyone files in quietly, takes a seat, listens attentively and sings when asked. If they don't, no police arrest them, no one takes them to jail or kills them in a shootout. If they don't give to the collection plate, no one takes their wallet. At most, they will be asked to leave the group. I don't see why a society couldn't operate like that.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree, because I see government as a necessary evil.  I believe that government needs to be very seriously limited, as power begets power, and that no limited government will stay limited for long, so revolutions must occur at regular intervals (such revolutions don't necessarily have to be violent).  I think the framers of the US Constitution are in my camp on this point.

We both see the state as "evil". That's a pretty good start. I, too, hope the next revolution is peaceful.

It is my contention that in the absence of government, power will be consolidated and wielded by some group.  This has proven to be the case throughout history, which is why all of the great nations of the world currently have and always have had governments/states in place.  Because of this, it seems a good idea to create a formal apparatus of government that is as self-limiting as possible.  I do believe that smaller tribal-based societies can survive in seeming anarchy, but only if they stay isolated from other societies and they stay small.

To me, "great nation" is an oxymoron but you're right, whenever some area tries to split off, the current nations traipse there to squash it.

[Guest]

By your own definition, a state being "a politically organized body of people"; wouldn't being politically organized consitute a government?  I know this sounds like picking nits, but I see no practical distinction and I'm trying to understand what you see as a difference.

I only chose that dictionary definition from the ones offered to please RaggedClaws. I prefer this one:
 
 State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

That would distinguish it from the officers of a Book Club, for instance.

In the church example, the church group neither taxes nor aggresses. You see the difference between the collection plate and taxes, don't you? Also, a state claims ownership of all of the territory in its grasp. I prefer total private property. A good friend of mine likes to say, "If there is something that only a state can do, that thing should not be done."

[griz]

Actually in the church example there is a hidden, or at least outsourced, aggression.  You mention that the most that would happen to an individual who made themselves unwelcome is they would be asked to leave.  True enough, unless they would not leave voluntarily.  Then the church would call the police to be aggressive for them.  I am sure you will argue that the church would only be defending their own property from someone who "started it" by refusing to behave as the group wished, and you would be right.  But that is the way governments start, as a collection of people who are looking out for their own best interest and enforcing those interest against the ones who don't play well with others.

[Perd Hapley]

Well said, griz.

[wheelgunkid]

I've got a very dear friend who is unemployed and cannot find work. She has no health coverage. If anything happens to her, I'll try to help as best I can, but I don't make much money. Personally, I wish that someone did have to provide her with health care. She's trying to find work, and is not trying to avoid it. I don't have a problem with the health care measure, even if it does mean I'll pay some more tax. Just my opinion.

[Guest]

Actually in the church example there is a hidden, or at least outsourced, aggression.  You mention that the most that would happen to an individual who made themselves unwelcome is they would be asked to leave.  True enough, unless they would not leave voluntarily.  Then the church would call the police to be aggressive for them.

That is a basis for my beef. I think they should have to defend it themselves without forced subsidy. They could hire a private guard or bouncer.

I am sure you will argue that the church would only be defending their own property from someone who "started it" by refusing to behave as the group wished, and you would be right.  But that is the way governments start, as a collection of people who are looking out for their own best interest and enforcing those interest against the ones who don't play well with others.

Yes, I agree that the whole "state/government" issue gets murky when reduced to the private property level. I see no problem defending one's legitimately-owned property. I would much rather deal with that than deal with persons whose enforcers and weapons are bought with tax funds, though. I guess I, as a property owner, am the "state" when defending it. But I don't claim to have these powers over others' property or lives. For instance, I might not want heroin use on my land but don't bother enforcing that preference elsewhere. I would prefer that all property be private.

[Guest]

I've got a very dear friend who is unemployed and cannot find work. She has no health coverage. If anything happens to her, I'll try to help as best I can, but I don't make much money. Personally, I wish that someone did have to provide her with health care. She's trying to find work, and is not trying to avoid it. I don't have a problem with the health care measure, even if it does mean I'll pay some more tax. Just my opinion.

At least you are honest about being a socialist. If the health measure passes, what do you think should happen to someone that refuses to participate? Should they be arrested? Jailed? Assets frozen or confiscated?

[RaggedClaws]

At least you are honest about being a socialist.

There is a whole spectrum of choices between "anarchy" and "socialism" ya know

[Guest]

At least you are honest about being a socialist.

There is a whole spectrum of choices between "anarchy" and "socialism" ya know

(wheelgunkid)  "Personally, I wish that someone did have to provide her with health care."

 This is unequivocal.

 It means, "I want the state to use force, or the threat of it, to take money from  'A' and give it to 'B' for health care.

[griz]

For what it's worth Mercedes, it sounds as if we aren't that far apart.  I think a society should err on the side of individual freedom.  I just think might makes right is not enough structure for the only societal rule.  I suspect we could be fine neighbors under the rule of anarchy (if you will excuse the oxymoron), but I am NOT moving to Somalia.

[wheelgunkid]

Well, that's my opinion. The American public sanctions taxes for just about everything anyway. Otherwise we wouldn't have taxes.

For example, I hate sports, esepcially pro. Just a bunch of spoiled millionaires bashing each other. Why then should I have to pay taxes for a pro football team to build a stadium?

Yet it was voted in, so I have to pay it. I think health care is 100,000 times more important for taxes than any stupid sport. If it gets voted in, we'll have to pay for it.

So, if you're one who doesn't want to participate, don't pay your taxes. We're the ones allowing taxation in the first place.

[Guest]

For what it's worth Mercedes, it sounds as if we aren't that far apart.  I think a society should err on the side of individual freedom.  I just think might makes right is not enough structure for the only societal rule.  I suspect we could be fine neighbors under the rule of anarchy (if you will excuse the oxymoron), but I am NOT moving to Somalia.

Haha!
 
 Me neither; too old.

[Guest]

Yeah. I'd consider cutting other things off from the public purse before health care. Healthcare/welfare is just more of a target because we see it more.

... because they're 65% of the budget.

  I included Social Security; income security; Medicare; health; ed., training, employment and social services and veterans.

[grampster]

As I'm 62 and just retired, I can see the Social Security piece of the pie needs to be expanded a bit.

[Guest]

As I'm 62 and just retired, I can see the Social Security piece of the pie needs to be expanded a bit.

Thief!

BTW, speaking of "expanded", are you overweight? If so, maybe you can work that lower income into a diet aid of sorts.

 

[grampster]

Bow Wow!  Grrrrrr! Barkbarkbark.  *

 *Anybody wanna go bird huntin'.  huh huh do ya huh huh huh?

[Guest]

Anybody wanna go bird huntin'?

Haha!

[grampster]

My first name is Dick as well.  Still wanna go?  heh heh.