Once again, you’re talking about “the modern state”, not “the state” as such. “The state” as such has existed in many forms for thousands of years, and most certainly was not non-existant in Europe throughout most of its history and in most of its populated regions. I think there is some obfuscation going on here in the attempt to deny that medieval Europe was largely statist.
Then you’re basically denying the libertarian (and Weberian) definition of the state in the attempt to legitimize fuedal monarchy. A monopoly on violence is a state, wether it’s monarchal or not.
Yes and no. Your statement is correct as written. But from his OP it looks to me that when Stranger uses the term “state” what is actually being described is specifically the modern state (think Hobbes), which is a special case, and a recent phenomenon.
That’s because the modern state is what the original post is all about, though the poster only says “state”.
But you will agree the modern state evolved during the rule of and with the aid of the absolute monarch?
No. You just got tripped up by the use of the word state where modern state was really meant.
You continue to astonish me with your attempts to demonstrate your ideological purity by making completely off-topic comments.
Now go away, we don’t care what you think.
Think of the ECB. In this case, the bank’s orders are to contain inflation, and the pleas of individual governments to expand credit are ignored. Bureaucratic function is something of a protection.
Suppose the EU were to create a “security intervention force”, a permanent military force capable of intervening in border conflicts. There would be no clear civilian command for this military force, and it would be required to intervene as per its rules of operations without the member governments being able to influence it. It could then fight wars without any form of restraint or conscientiousness simply by claiming that it is following orders, and possibly even overthrow governments in the process.
If I were to eject you from your house through force and then allow you to continue living there for a fee, do I become a state?
I’m so enlightened by Stranger’s amazing ‘philosophy’…I wonder what’s meaning of this :
L’Etat c’est moiI also like this one : Qu’ils mangent de la brioche. It’s puzzling that a monarchy like the French, despite the inherent farsightedness and virtues of monarchy actually ended pretty badly because the rulers were so inept that they couldn’t pay their bills…
Yes, but he is speaking of the pre-modern state as if it isn’t still a state, when it is. It appears that what’s really describing is the process by which what already is a state becomes more bureaucratic, while implying that it was a state before it became ultra-bureaucratic.
That’s rude. I think my concerns have merit, since you appear to be making apologetics for non-modern states.
Considering that it was my house to begin with, you certainly would be functioning as a coercer or criminal, to say the least. If this is institutionalized as a monopoly on such force, then yes, you become a state according to any libertarian or weberian definition of a state.
I become a monopoly on force, over the area of your house. So would I be a state, yes or no?
That statement was was wrong when L14 made it though. His administration was far beyond any sort of scale for which control or even knowledge by a single man was possible. Must’ve been a pretty nice ego trip though.
Many rulers have been unable to pay their bills. Revolutions happen when the ruling class lose faith in their own right to rule. The French Revolution happened because the nobility and the clergy voted with the third estate against their own interests. If you look at the various Russian revolutions (1905, 1917, 1991) you will see similar self rejections on the part of the ruling classes.
The fundamental issue in the scenario is that you’re a theif to begin with, and to add insult to injury you then have the audacity to charge me fees for using the property that you stole from me to begin with. Are you trying to justify this scenario? Because that’s sort of exactly what states do, steal people’s land and property and then tax them to live on the land and use the property that was theirs to begin with. When done on such a small scale, we recognize this scenario as “crime”. When done on a larger scale, this is a “state”. The formation of a “state” involves precisely the scenario you’re spelling out, only on a larger scale then just one person’s home. So, logically, yes, you are justifying the pretext to a state if you think this scenario is proper.
That’s only your own personal hallucination. Now I reinvite you to get out.
I’m sorry that you’re not able to take constructive criticism.
To do that, criticism must be provided. All you do is express your delusions. You’re wasting our time. Get out.
Criticism has been provided, you’re simply choosing to deliberately ignore it and be rude.
Only through the thin film of your usual tactics of creating strawmen and disrupting thread after thread with the same antagonistic foolishness.
Please stop trolling BP. It is getting tiresome when people insist upon sidetracking every discussion, without contributing anything except strawmen and semantic arguments.
Take it up with Louis XIV ?
What is wrong actually is the ridiculous notion that so called royal governments are not states.