What, Sage, you didn’t like my Hegel’s quotes ? =] They make a lot of sense…In some parallel universe =]
In the words of Sir Alexander Gray:
‘Hegelianism is the kind of thing that ought to be left to Hegelians who presumably know the secret of Hegel.’
How can the State say it protects property rights, when it must violate them to exist?
Then it shouldn’t be allowed to tax (steal private property, i.e theft). And there fore it has no means to support it’s activities and will cease to exist.
There has never in the history of the world been a government established by a consent of the governed. Social contract theory fails remarkably. And no, there is no immaculate conception of the State. Read Rothbard’s or Roy Child’s destruction of Nozick’s argument.
The State makes it’s own laws. Positivism. It gives itself its own justification, the intellectuals support them with ideology. The state transcends its own limits. All states become tyrannical and totalitarian over time. Once you give an institution the power to legislate and print money… what else do you think would happen?
- Obviously a difference between government and state. I’m assuming the op doesn’t know the distinction, so proceeded under the assumption he meant State. And for those arguing about definitions above: The State is*“the organization of politican means.”*
You will find that in most countries those institutions were established by the monarchy, and continued to exist as different forms of government passed on.
Governments are destroyed all the time. There are coups, revolutions, collapses. The state remains to swear allegiance to the next government.
Governments do not collect taxes. They raise them for the state.
The organization that instructs the State.
Congress with out a State is meaningless, but the State can continue on without Congress.
This is seen in the Nazi conquest of France. The Germans did not conquer all of France in two weeks, it conquered the French State and through it all the territory that it already occupied.
The machinery of State never changed, only the operator did.
Not all of France is the government. The State apparatus IS the government. The State is government.
Repetition is not an argument.
I don’t consider the misplaced premise of difference between the government and the state to be argumentative.
I’m not sure how that is related to what I said.
I know not all of France is the Government, only the French Government is the Government. The Government lives in the capital, it is only through the State that it is able to exercise control over their whole territory.
Germans did not need to send Germans to every town in order to control the whole of France, because French police were already controlling all of France. The French government quit and surrendered its control of the French State to the Germans. When the Germans left, a new French Government was formed to manage the French State.
The governor, possessing too land to personally manage, needs a system to manage it. The State is one method, fiefdom is another.
The Iraqis have a Government, but because the US destroyed the Iraqi State in the war, it has no authority.
The government is the state. There is no intermeditary between the people and the government. You seem to labor under the delusion that individuals in the public sector work for the State which is somehow different then the government. They are the same institution merely given different names. It is not Man, Economy, Government, but Man, Economy, State
And the French police are apart of the French government.
It was the government of Saddam Hussein.
They don’t work for the State, they compose the State, but they do not compose the Government.
The French Government surrendered in 1940.
How does that sentence relate to any point I made?
I see you deliberated skipped over the meat of my post.
That’s a contradiction, by the way.
They enforce the laws made by congress, they collect taxes, they are the peons of the institution. Even the marginal laborers of an institution compose that very thing no matter how trivial their task.
And it became the Vichy government.
You are somehow implying that the US military destroyed the Iraqi ‘State’ which I conclude is merely the Iraqi government.
Meat of the post? Do you mean your little governance land hypothesis?
Please explain.
They destroyed both, but only a new Government is formed. There is no Iraqi State.
Right, they are the bureaucracy that obeys the government, the state.
New government, same state.
This is exactly what Stranger said originally.
Ya.
If, as you say, they are different words for the same thing then it is Man, Economy, Government.
On the other hand, if they are separate institutions then only Man, Economy, State is correct.
That makes absolutely no sense.
They are the government. It is like saying the workers are somehow a separate corporation from the CEO’s
’
Actually new government, new state. Unless you worked with the Germans you were basically shot. France had a league of fascists who welcomed German influence and were willing to work with them. Obviously these people were put into power to help conquer the people.
“The governor, possessing too land to personally manage, needs a system to manage it. The State is one method, fiefdom is another.”
A man with personal land is a property owner, not a governer. I accepted that you may have figured this out after writing it.
Fine, let me rephrase. They used a term that has been widely used through the ages. Louis XIV didn’t say ‘I am the government’.
Post Script:
Even if we accept your argument you have committed a fallacy of composition. If the State is part of the Government that is not the equivalent to them being the same thing. A hand is not a person, and a person is a not a hand.
Actually you are proposing that the State is apart of the government. I am the one arguing that the State and the Government are two different terms for the same thing. To me it is like saying The Phalanges and The Fingers.
Which is why it explains why the Iraqi government doesn’t actually govern Iraq?
Okay, you’re confused.
We aren’t talking about positions of power. We are talking about police walking the streets. The Nazi’s destroyed and reformed every bureaucracy in France?
Which is why when I say governor, I didn’t mean a man with personal land.
This has devolved to beyond stupid.
No, its like saying that hand and brain are two terms for the same thing.
Perhaps that has something to do with urban violence and nonchalant behavior towards the institution itself
Actually we are talking about positions of power. Who gives those police walking down the street the ability to arrest people?
How quaint. Here I was thinking that property rights existed and that a man who didn’t own this personal land had no right to dictate the environment of it. Clearly one of us is in the wrong forum. Now, who pays your hypothetical governor? Is it the United States government? A smart individual would obviously see that if one works for the government then one is apart of that very government, not a separate faction that is something ambiguously not apart of it yet apart of it. Police officers, when the command structure is followed to the apex, essentially work for the government, soldiers are warriors of the United States government. Delving further into your ‘delusion’ you seem to think that if the US government were to crumble, all of these people would somehow still have jobs, still have power, and somehow be above an average individual. I contest you are wrong. The very institution that just crumbled causes there to be no police, no soldiers, no tax collectors, no bureaucrats, nothing that can be conceived as a public profession. Therefore since there is no ‘state’ after government, it must be assumed that they are one in the same institution. Power is merely diffused over a large body of workers yet discretion is still held at the top. Again I say, being a CEO does not necessarily separate you into your own corporation within a corporation.
Actually no its not.