Short bites on the State

In a post by Tyson Durden, at Zero Hedge, various commenters had these things to say about the State:

One

In its most idealised form, the state is the protector of the people and the great equaliser between the haves and the have-nots.

When the state gets perverted for whatever reason, the ideals of the state also get perverted and no longer function as intended. The author is confusing rampant corruption and the rearing of fascism as the true function of the state, whereas I would submit that the perversion we are now seeing in Western culture is not the true ideal of the Founders’ intent, which is to say that all citizens are equal before the law.

In other words, if we had enforced the laws that were written into the Constitution, none of this mess would have happened in the first place.

One can argue then that it was the state that failed to uphold the ideals of the state and allowed the perversion to occur. I am afraid there is no real argument for that point except to say that if ideal men had acted ideally, the state would be the great shining city on the hill we all see in our dreams. It can therefore be extrapolated that as long as there are men to govern others, the perversions will happen amongst men, leaving no form of government ideally pristine.

Men are corruptible. Politicians are corruptible absolutely.

Two

Precisely why the state is immoral. Since the state has a monopoly on force, only corruptible people can take charge of it – and they get to tax everyone else who doesn’t get to have their own military! And let’s not forget that each new generation doesn’t get to choose whether to pledge fealty to the state – instead they are automatically subsumed into the borg at birth.

Three

The bottom line is that a man, by himself, is unlikely to be able to survive in the world by himself, no matter how bootstrappy he is. It would take an incredible amount of luck to never be struck down by injury, poisoning, animal attacks and so on and so forth.

The most important danger the lone man faces is other men. By himself, he stands no chance against multiple foes. He may win a round or two, but in the end, those who band together to steal from him will get what they seek.

That is what government is supposed to be about. It is to setup and enforce a framework which all must abide by. Its main purpose is to protect the right of people to live freely without fear of harm from others.

You can call it something other than government if you want, but that’s what it is. There must be a degree of collectivism for humanity to survive. It is unavoidable.

But if you want to throw tantrums about it instead of accepting it, well, you’re fortunate enough to live in a system where you can still do that.

Four

A coordinating body (here called the state) is necessary. You cannot manage giant areas of territory without coordination.

However, this relationship does not need to be a one-way street. The whole idea of offloading all decision, regulation, force and so on to one big daddy MUST result in a parasitic relationship. This is not a downfall… it is built into the setup. There is no such thing as “big daddy corrupting”… the whole setup must lead to this, because of the roles in such a relationship.

But as i said, it does not need to be that way. The relationship could be much more cooperative and mutual, by the population doing much of the management, decision, force and so on itself, so that the coordinating body indeed just does coordination and not much more. However, this would require a population that is willing to act selfresponsible and make decisions (and face the consequences)…. so, it requires a population that mentally is not just a consumer, but a creator/producer when it comes to politics and economics.

Or phrased another way: A state is necessary, but it does not need to be as “fat” as it is now…. all it needs to do if the population is competent enough, is coordination and strong enforcement of a handful but important simple rules (i.e. in the case of markets, you cannot have an efficient free market, without efficient regulation that defines a “playfield” and enforce it – but without interfering with what happens inside that playfield).

Or even shorter: The state does not need to play the role of a big daddy for a bunch of drones.

Five

The Jeffersonian idea was to have a limited Federal government and have nearly all of the power in the hands of localities and as little as possible centralised anywhere. Even banks were local and not mega-national behemoths, as Hamilton espoused.

The only “Big Brother” possible under that scenario is your next-door neighbour. A nice apple strudel and that patches things right up. As it is now, we have secret service agents pulling seventh-graders out of class for a discussion about a Facebook post. Something tells me he wouldn’t be very interested in my apple strudel.

Secret Service interrogates Seventh Grader

My take

There were elements of truth above:

When the state gets perverted for whatever reason, the ideals of the state also get perverted and no longer function as intended. “

There is no such thing as “big daddy corrupting”… the whole setup must lead to this, because of the roles in such a relationship. But as I said, it does not need to be that way.”

“All it needs to do if the population is competent enough, is coordination and strong enforcement of a handful but important simple rules …”

The one bone of contention underlying all politics is that there are those who believe that man is perfectible and this manifests itself in Enlightenment thinking, the rule of reason, “rational” thinking, humanism, Man as the centre of the universe and so on … and then there are those who maintain – this includes me – that there are powerful forces at work to prevent this perfectibility from occurring.

In other words, there are unseen hands. As an analogy, you need only look at Elenin to see force at work, with most people being unaware of it. Elenin is not a theory – it’s happening. You might also google a gas giant called Tyche [h/t Rossa].

More prosaically, there is the Queen’s “dark forces” comment and that chimes in with Woodrow Wilson and Senator William Jenner. Some take these things to mean the banksters, fantasy films such as Quantum of Solace make it an organization of powerful business interests, using the green smokescreen to cover their goals and their deeds and yet others go historic and trace it back to the Babylonian mystery religions, which you may scoff at … but not if you’re a Mason.

It’s a matter of wonder to me the amount of denial which meets assertions such as these because it has always been in the nature of all people of like mind to collude, if they see it as furthering their interests. Look at us at Orphans – why are we doing this? Why did guilds start in ye olde England, in days of yore?

There is a danger in ascribing to the organization the nefariousness perpetrated by the individuals. People are members of all sorts of clubs and organizations and they take their own slant into each of them. So it’s not specifically the Club of Rome which is guilty of bringing the EU superstate into being – it is the individuals who pushed and signed that decision who are culpable.

Few people are willing to follow the paths of these people wherever they go, mainly because there are so many of them but I latched on to one – Veronique Morali, ex-Tesco head and creator of Force Femmes, the group which has had a large role in blighting education in the past decade and in selling women down the drain, under the guise of championing them. It’s always the way, on the left, that the words they spout are the opposite of what they intend.

Freedom, for example.

Do you know the names of the head and board members of the BIS? You should because these are the people carrying out the financial control of Europe and more broadly, impinging on the IMF and WB. These are people, some might say clones and robots and they are committed to a simple goal – domination through the power of money.

Now in this context, what’s this philosophical discussion about The State?

 

3 comments for “Short bites on the State

  1. PPS
    May 20, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    “The one bone of contention underlying all politics is that there are those who believe that man is perfectible and this manifests itself in Enlightenment thinking, the rule of reason, “rational” thinking, humanism, Man as the centre of the universe and so on … and then there are those who maintain – this includes me – that there are powerful forces at work to prevent this perfectibility from occurring.”

    There are people who think that man is perfectible?
    There is definition of the perfect human?

    Would it be possible for you to give me some further reading on this please?

Comments are closed.