Is The State Necessary?

[Teallaura]

This keeps coming up so I thought we might explore it a bit. To be clear 'State' here refers to any sovereign government. It does not specify authoritarian governments although there's a strong association in the popular mind between the two. In present usage any and all nation states would be considered a 'State'. Capitalization is also for clarity as many Americans associate the term with political divisions within a nation state of the same name. I.e. In this nomenclature the United States of America would itself be a State but the state of Texas would not be.

Okay, so the question - is the State a necessity? Is it possible (however presently improbable) to have an ordered, peaceable world absent the Second Coming in which no States exist? If so, how would it be governed?

For those who view the State in anarchist terms what prevents the uglier side of human nature from gaining a supremacy detrimental to society? Or is there any such condition in which human nature would be a detriment to society? Is 'ordered and peaceable even a desirable condition?

[norwegen]

Okay, so the question - is the State a necessity?Yes
Is it possible (however presently improbable) to have an ordered, peaceable world absent the Second Coming in which no States exist?I don't believe so. The anarchy in Somalia recently, for example, demonstrated a rise in territorial feuding between warlords. A small, isolated society might survive without central leadership (or at least strong central leadership), but not for very long, I don't imagine, as demonstrated by the demise of the the Morioris in the early 1800s (click (http://books.google.com/books?id=b5Ob9SStce8C&pg=RA5-PA63&lpg=RA5-PA63&dq=chathams+and+atolls&source=web&ots=l-Y7W4ecjI&sig=MVdRfvEdiJMyEh_FO2pVpT0K418)).

[Conductor42]

The state is not always neccessary. Presently, however, I would argue that it is. It should be an effort of the state, however, to create conditions in which it will not be needed. Use of state power should be a last resort in the pursuit of justice and equality.

[themuzicman]

In a very small group for a single generation, sometimes the state is unnecessary, if all the participants are willing to adhere to their role in the group, even if it isn't in their personal best intrests

[Teallaura]

The state is not always neccessary. Presently, however, I would argue that it is. It should be an effort of the state, however, to create conditions in which it will not be needed. Use of state power should be a last resort in the pursuit of justice and equality.
How is that possible? How can a State create said conditions?

At what point should State power be used - before or after the injustice occurs? How would it be recognized if not first codified (i.e. in a State absent society how do you establish what is and is not lawful)? What protects society from such internal threats and how is it held accountable?

What then protects the society from external threats? How are external threats recognized and dealt with preventively - or are they only dealt with once invasion has occurred? What forces deal with that threat and how are they governed?

No, I'm not trying to frustrate you - I'm trying to understand how you replace the State and still have its functions both internal and external performed? Shy of a major change in human nature I can't see such a mechanism.

[Teallaura]

In a very small group for a single generation, sometimes the state is unnecessary, if all the participants are willing to adhere to their role in the group, even if it isn't in their personal best intrests
How is that not merely a very small State (State being any sovereign government of any type)?

[themuzicman]

How is that not merely a very small State (State being any sovereign government of any type)?

The state assumes that someone is ruling over everyone else.

This is a culture with specific morals.

michael

[Teallaura]

No, State assumes only sovereignty (that they 'own' and rule their own territory) and govern themselves in some manner. Communal life is a form of self government - there's nothing in the rulebook that says it must be hierarchal. Perfect adherence to communal standards, as in your example, doesn't invalidate it as a State so long as those two conditions are met, which they would seem to be.

[Conductor42]

Teal,

There are too many possible answers to your questions. The easiest answer I can give is it can be different in every situation and culture.

[Amazing Rando]

For the best biblical-theological treatment of the Scriptural theology of the state you may ever encounter, I recommend Yoder'sThe Christian Witness to the State (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Witness-State-Howard-Yoder/dp/0836192095/ref=sr_1_3/104-5874775-2707129?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173642173&sr=8-3) as well as his shorter and more succinct piece "The State in the New Testament" found in Discipleship As Political Responsibility (http://www.amazon.com/Discipleship-Political-Responsibility-Howard-Yoder/dp/0836192559/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5874775-2707129?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173642401&sr=1-1). :smile:

[Teallaura]

Teal,

There are too many possible answers to your questions. The easiest answer I can give is it can be different in every situation and culture.
Actually, that just tells me you don't mean the State - you likely mean particular governmental types/systems. Most people make the mistake confusing government system with State - okay, the fact that we use the terms interchangably might have something to do with it. :ahem:

I suspect it's the concept of a hierarchy or hierarchal system that you disagree with and not the idea of governance per se. If governance were the issue there wouldn't be more than one answer to my questions. The State is merely a mechanism (not system) of governance - the only one of which I am aware.

[Teallaura]

For the best biblical-theological treatment of the Scriptural theology of the state you may ever encounter, I recommend Yoder'sThe Christian Witness to the State (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Witness-State-Howard-Yoder/dp/0836192095/ref=sr_1_3/104-5874775-2707129?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173642173&sr=8-3) as well as his shorter and more succinct piece "The State in the New Testament" found in Discipleship As Political Responsibility (http://www.amazon.com/Discipleship-Political-Responsibility-Howard-Yoder/dp/0836192559/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5874775-2707129?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173642401&sr=1-1). :smile:
:brood: And that is on topic how? Wrong thread, Pacifist Boy.


I will check out the links, however - thanks.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Actually, that just tells me you don't mean the State - you likely mean particular governmental types/systems. Most people make the mistake confusing government system with State - okay, the fact that we use the terms interchangably might have something to do with it. :ahem:

I suspect it's the concept of a hierarchy or hierarchal system that you disagree with and not the idea of governance per se. If governance were the issue there wouldn't be more than one answer to my questions. The State is merely a mechanism (not system) of governance - the only one of which I am aware.

Hmm, that's actually somewhat confusing for me, since in your op you say that "'State' here refers to any sovereign government." Different political philosophers define "The State" differently, sometimes in a contradictory manner—I'm thinking here of Nozick's and Nock's different ways of defining "The State."

Are you drawing the distinction between "The State" and "Government" as saying the State is the arm of government enfocement? I just want to be clear so that we all aren't talking across each other using different definitions for these words. I am essentially Nockian in how I define "The State" and "Government," but I have a feeling that you are thinking in very different terms. "State" does carry for me a certain set of negative connotations, though I don't necessarily mean "authoritarian" or "tyrannical" when deriding "The State"—I can clarify that if you wish.

I do have a few other questions for you: when you ask, "is the State necessary," I have to ask, "for what?" I can think of a whol slew of things for what one might say the State is necessary for, all of which I would probably disagree with, but I'd rather not put words into your mouth on that.

Also, when you say "any sovereign government," I would ask: what are your criteria for sovereignty? What makes a government "sovereign?"

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, so the question - is the State a necessity? Is it possible (however presently improbable) to have an ordered, peaceable world absent the Second Coming in which no States exist? If so, how would it be governed?How would you qualify Native American tribes back in the days they existed free of the Western man? That may be the only establishment when a "state"less sort of system has worked.

[Teallaura]

How would you qualify Native American tribes back in the days they existed free of the Western man? That may be the only establishment when a "state"less sort of system has worked.Hardly. Mississippian culture, Iriquious (sp) and virtually all the large tribal groups display the characteristic traits of a State - sovereign and self-governing. Even smaller tribes show the same traits.


Not ignoring you, SM - just need more time to answer you than I have at present.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Hardly. Mississippian culture, Iriquious (sp) and virtually all the large tribal groups display the characteristic traits of a State - sovereign and self-governing. Even smaller tribes show the same traits.


Not ignoring you, SM - just need more time to answer you than I have at present.

Oh, I'm good. :smug:

[1cliff]

If man's nature is essentially good, then we would not need a state to controll us. However if man's nature is essentially evil, then we do. I think history shows that when not restrained, people eventually desend into unrestrained stealling, raping, and murdering. For a biblical example see Judges 19-21 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Judges+19). For a modern example, look at Darfor and Sudan.

[Lady Macbeth]

Hardly. Mississippian culture, Iriquious (sp) and virtually all the large tribal groups display the characteristic traits of a State - sovereign and self-governing. Even smaller tribes show the same traits.

If you include all of the forms of government that existed among the First Nations as "States", then I have to say that "No, people cannot exist without a State." If no States existed at all, there would not even be families with a parent or two parents making decisions for their children - because if there are no sovereign "bodies" of people, but only individuals, and no self-governing "bodies" of people, but only individuals, then even children would be making their own decisions. Teenagers could wander off and do what they liked at their own discretion. Parents wouldn't have to be held accountable for the behaviors of their children, because they would not hold any governance over them.

The point of any government is to take the same principle of family and multiply it to a local, regional, and/or continental level. If a State, as you describe it, cannot exist, then a Family cannot exist either, and there is no peace or stability.


For a modern example, look at Darfor and Sudan.

I think you're severely underestimating the many causes of the breakdown in the Darfur region of Sudan and other hard-pressed regions. Their suffering is not a direct result of being "unrestrained" - it's a result of rapidly diminishing resources necessary for survival. No mother in her right mind is going to say "I'm just going to let my children starve to death and die of thirst for the sake of no one ever fighting again" and no responsible husband or father is going to let his family suffer for the same reason. Sudan has a central government. However, it is also a nation with a diversity of ethnic groups and has a long history of changes in power between these ethnic groups. Today, however, the increased competition for resources and blame-shifting for the lack of/controlling of the remaining resources has sparked internal strife that is killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions. There is no "good" or "evil" at play there - it's a battle for survival.

[guacamole]

Leviathan 101 and Thomas Hobbes. In any situation characterized by a lack of a social order, some sort of state, you will have the "bellum omnium contra omnes", the "war of everyone against everyone else". Whenever we create any sort of peace, some sort of arrangement in which we corporately agree to stop short of slaughtering each other, then a sort of state, or Leviathan, exists. We agree to put aside our natural right to self-protection in order to coexist peacefully and by following those mutually agreed upon rules, we create a State or Society.

fwiw
guaca

[1cliff]

If you include all of the forms of government that existed among the First Nations as "States", then I have to say that "No, people cannot exist without a State." If no States existed at all, there would not even be families with a parent or two parents making decisions for their children - because if there are no sovereign "bodies" of people, but only individuals, and no self-governing "bodies" of people, but only individuals, then even children would be making their own decisions. Teenagers could wander off and do what they liked at their own discretion. Parents wouldn't have to be held accountable for the behaviors of their children, because they would not hold any governance over them.

The point of any government is to take the same principle of family and multiply it to a local, regional, and/or continental level. If a State, as you describe it, cannot exist, then a Family cannot exist either, and there is no peace or stability.

Well Said!


I think you're severely underestimating the many causes of the breakdown in the Darfur region of Sudan and other hard-pressed regions. Their suffering is not a direct result of being "unrestrained" - it's a result of rapidly diminishing resources necessary for survival. No mother in her right mind is going to say "I'm just going to let my children starve to death and die of thirst for the sake of no one ever fighting again" and no responsible husband or father is going to let his family suffer for the same reason. Sudan has a central government. However, it is also a nation with a diversity of ethnic groups and has a long history of changes in power between these ethnic groups. Today, however, the increased competition for resources and blame-shifting for the lack of/controlling of the remaining resources has sparked internal strife that is killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions. There is no "good" or "evil" at play there - it's a battle for survival.

I agree that I used an over generalization. I am embarrassed to say that I was referring to the wrong African Country. I was thinking Somalia and typed Sudan. The Sudan and Darfur probably are a better example of an evil government instead of a failed government. And even then, the situation in Sudan and in Somalia is more complex than stated. What I was trying to say is that human beings as individuals, without some sort of external control, generally speaking, will behave in a selfish and anti-social manner. His (her) natural bent is to look out after self and his own. In other words, mankind is inherently evil.

[Mr Arkadin]

The state, defined as, the monopolist over arbitartion over a geographical area with the power to tax is not necessary. If we have a two person society do we need a monopolist? Well no most people argue. If you say there is one thousand people they say yes. Following this logic a monopolist is always necessary, otherwise one would descend into Hobbsian chaos; thus a one world government is necessary otherwise, as at present, each state is in an anarchic relationship between each other and need a monopolist to hit them over the head.
Now lets look at the incentives for the indiviual and the state: the former can only fund themselves by work and voluntary exchange and must bear the full costs of their actions. A state on the otherhand can impose a monopoly price for justice and can shift the costs of their activities onto others via taxation. After looking at these incentives who would be the most responsible?

[Duder]

Leviathan 101 and Thomas Hobbes. In any situation characterized by a lack of a social order, some sort of state, you will have the "bellum omnium contra omnes", the "war of everyone against everyone else".

Hello, Guaca -

I don't believe that the ungoverned society Hobbs discusses ever did or ever will exist. Wherever there is a group of organisms, whether it be a modern human nation or some microbes in a Petri dish, it will always happen that some organisms will bump into other organisms - that is, they will have conflicting objectivies goals. When this happens, the conflict is always resolved by some means. Either the means are "dictatorial", where one organism carries the day through brute force, or it is more "democratic", where the organisms end their conflict without force and cooperate toward a common end. Either resolution represents a kind of rudimentary state.

"The state" is simply a name given to the ways in which we organisms resolve situations where we bump into one another. The only way we could have no state at all would be to totally avoid bumping into one another, and I don't think that is possible.

Just my $.02

[NeilUnreal]

Duder sighting! :yipee: Hi, good ta see ya! :hi:

-Neil

[djdavo]

No, State assumes only sovereignty (that they 'own' and rule their own territory) and govern themselves in some manner. Communal life is a form of self government - there's nothing in the rulebook that says it must be hierarchal. Perfect adherence to communal standards, as in your example, doesn't invalidate it as a State so long as those two conditions are met, which they would seem to be.

It depends on your specific definition of the the State,but it seems that even communal life ultimately becomes hierarchal. think about native tribes around the world. even if they're small, they (mostly) all have a chief. A guy in charge. Think about communes. even they have someone in charge.
It's not much of a "State",but it's still there...