The Rothbard article on Anatomy of the State proves that further debate into this subject is in my eyes unnecessary.
Sorry, I know we aren’t on equal footing, but I didn’t initiate this semantics debate. But trust me, I know more about the nuance of the English language, then you do.
Are you aware of the term Nation of Israel?
And, of course, an encyclopedia article is going to be more precious than a dictionary.
Though “nation” is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. Countries where the social concept of “nation” coincides with the political concept of “state” are called nation states.
Of course, anyone who uses the word race is a racist. My mistake.
You and Laughing Man should be friends. You both have a nack for inventing imaginative things to put in other people’s mouth.
Could you please quote the part where Rothbard discusses the two terms?
Or is this just the fallacy of appeal to authority?
Right, went there, but I didn’t find where he discussed the terms.
I was hoping you might bring the relevant section into this thread.
We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.
If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.
Witness how sleamlessly he uses the word government/state. There is no difference.
As I thought, appeal to authority.
If you would like to reference an argument made by Rothbard, feel free.
He also said:
Are we to believe that Rothbard ruled out the possibility of the existence of any criminal organization other than the State? Even he is not immune to imprecision.
Of course, Rothbard is correct, we are neither the Government nor the State.
Hehe. I understand English pretty well, although speaking it flawlessly is of course (way) harder for me. But your being a native speaker doesn’t mean you’re not purposefully redefining words.
Oh, by the way, you meant
Yes, and ?
Yes JonBostwick but didn’t you use the Encyclopedia a few posts back to appeal to an authority on your definition. Didn’t you open the door in other words? I still think the State and Government are the same. This still looks like intellectual hair-splitting, but split away. I’ll watch the process unfold.
Says the man who has presented nothing resembling evidence other then what he thinks. But please, don’t let me saying that stop you from actually doing such a thing.
The article concerns solely the government and what it is and isn’t. Obviously you have to take that into consideration.
I was accused of using a personal definition. The encyclopedia is evidence refuting that accusation.
Good, and that article was not about the issue of the continuation of the State after a Government dissolution(or any other issue where the distinction becomes relevant). If it was, he might have been more careful of his usage, no?
I offered argument, as well as historical reference, actually. Its all there to (re)read.
ok, fair enough… but Rothbard using the term interchangeably I think has an underlying meaning. They are different concepts, State and government, ones even spelled long than the other, but they both are a coercive monopoly upon a territory and I still don’t see the difference when understood in this way.
They aren’t both a coercive monopoly. The State is the coercive monopoly. Government is the organization that directs the State.
Think of the Polish Government-in-exile. It was a government, but it lacked a State to control.
This article is what the government is. Rothbard uses the term interchangibly therefore there is no issue of the ‘state’ continuing after the government for they are same. I think you are purposely being dense towards this fact in order to save face.
Not based on any scholarly works or articles. Just merely you implying ‘I think this therefore it is correct’
What…are you trying to imply that Poland is a state in and of itself? Like actually pointing on the map and outling its borders and saying ‘This is the Polish State’?
So government directs the coerciveness. Sounds even more vile.
And what was the point of the Polish Government-in-exile? What was it about and how did the government officials get paid?
Does that appear to be a sound argument to you?
Yes. This is becoming truly absurd. I see that the state and government are two terms used to explain a single institution. So naturally if the government ends, it is as natural as saying the state ends.
After Poland was conquered in World War II, the Polish Government evacuated to France then England.
I imagine it was funded solely by the Allied powers.