NationStates Jolt Archive

So what do you think the purpose of the State, or government, is? It can serve many functions. It can make war, protect the liberty of it's citizens, regulate commerce, police it's citizenry, promote social equality and economic equality, or maintain a superstructure for society.

While the State can do all of this things, what do you think the ultimate purpose, or motivation, for the State is? I don't speak specifically of the United States or German or Russian or Chinese or Austrailian government... I mean the concept of the State itself. For what purpose is it formed, and for what purpose does it persist? To you, in your dreams, and in reality?

The ultimate purpose of the state is to dispense justice, so that evil is punished and good encouraged.

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
-- John Stewart Mill

Protect the liberty of it's citizens, regulate commerce, police it's citizenry, promote social equality and economic equality, or maintain a superstructure for society.
All of those.

There is no simple answer. The state exists to grant the wishes of it's owners, which vary and are often in conflict with each other. If you look at government in the aggregate, it's amazing how so many different people can appear like one giant creature. If I must personify the state, it's most common purpose or goal seems to be to promote it's own necessity.

To protect and preserve the autonomy of the people.

The ultimate purpose of the state is to dispense justice, so that evil is punished and good encouraged.
the question there is: what exactly is good and evil? there are many varied interpretations on this it aint funny.

To satisfy the power-hunger of the people who make up the state as well as to support capitalism by enforcing property laws that keep the working class dependent on wage labor for survival.

The primary purpose of the state is to ensure the survival of the state.

To prevent lawlessness and chaos. The purpose of the Total State is to control the populace in every way.

The state has no fixed purpose. It is an organisation of people. Any organisation should constantly evolve in order to satisfy the current needs of its members. 200 years ago it was freedom, then peace, then justice, tomorrow it will be clean water, space or anything. As technology and needs evolve, the state should evolve.

A state is designed to promote uniformity, everyone using the same roads, the same money, the same language, following the same laws, etc.

the state's fundamental purpose is to protect the power and privilege of a tiny ruling elite and further their interests. this is the only unifying feature of all the various states that have ever existed. everything else is window dressing.

The state exists to

> protect and uphold civil rights
> defend the nation
> facilitate a free market
> protect its citizens from harmful factors beyond their control
> provide a justice system to deal with criminals
> provide some education and healthcare
> protect the environment
> provide water
> provide roads

To satisfy the power-hunger of the people who make up the state as well as to support capitalism by enforcing property laws that keep the working class dependent on wage labor for survival.

Got to keep that working class busy doing something.

The state should exist to look after the people.
It should provide healthcare, education, transport, telephones, running water, electricity, food, gas and housing for free.
It should enforce laws and keep things running smoothly.
It should also try and create a perfect world by "removing" certains types and groups of people.

To satisfy the power-hunger of the people who make up the state as well as to support capitalism by enforcing property laws that keep the working class dependent on wage labor for survival.

HOES NOES! :g0nk: TEH 100S OF MILLIONS OF CAPITALIZTZS IS UNHAPY BUT DEYS IS F00Z WHO DUN NO ITZ!!1!11!1five!1

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
-- John Stewart Mill

^ = truth.

The state should exist to look after the people.
It should provide healthcare, education, transport, telephones, running water, electricity, food, gas and housing for free.
It should enforce laws and keep things running smoothly.
It should also try and create a perfect world by "removing" certains types and groups of people.

You mean... types of people like Jews, and Blacks? Gays? Intellectuals?

Robbopolis: For the sake of convenience, let's call that "justice." Why does the State exist to do this? Arguably, many States do not punish the wicked and reward the good; indeed, oftentimes it is the wicked who are rewarded, or who at least get away with their behavior, whilst the "good" are downtrodden, ignored. Take Russia, China, a few Slavic States and any number of Latin American countries. If you're a murderer or an exploiter of men, you're doing great in those countries, and if you're a simple man [or woman!] who tries to live well then you're probably quite oppressed. Knowing this, can you still say that it is the purpose of the State to dispense justice, when it is obvious that many States do not, and have not always done so through history?

Vittos Ordination: Yet, it seems as though the autonomy of the citizen is not the first interest of any State. Control appears to be the ultimate end of the State; autonomy is antithetical to this control, and is infringed upon at every opportunity. How can you say that the protection of it's citizens' autonomy is a State's purpose when the nature of the State - that is, the sacrifice of a degree of autonomy in order to enter into the social contract - renders autonomy less than it could be under, say, anarchy?

Letila: Not every State uses a capitalist system, and not every State has a working class. Simply look throughout history to see perfect examples of that; and there are still countries today that do not meet with that definition of economics and class. How do you justify your explanation, if this is true?

Whispering Legs: Is the survival of the State for the good of the people or the good of the State?

Psylos: Yet, arguably, the purpose of something need not change, even while it's superstructure does. This is more an inquiry into the very nature of government.

Arammanar: Interesting. What if a State were to exist that did not do that? That allowed complete cultural autonomy on the part of it's citizens? Do you think that is even possible?

Swimmingpool: Some of those things are relatively recent ideas, though; the free market, environmentalism and civil/human rights being concepts that have only coalesced in government in the last 300-400 years. If you agree, then how you can include those things as part of the purpose of the State, when many different governments have gotten along quite well without them? When government existed before any of those ideas did?

State exist to do things that will benefit the public as a whole, but benefit little or even harm the interest of individuals.

Anything that an individual would have incentive to do should not be taken over by the State.

The state exists to

> protect and uphold civil rights
> defend the nation
> facilitate a free market
> protect its citizens from harmful factors beyond their control
> provide a justice system to deal with criminals
> provide some education and healthcare
> protect the environment
> provide water
> provide roads

I agree. I believe the state should give the same economic OPPORTUNITY to everyone (no racism etc.) However, I disagree with the statement that it should provide some healthcare. When both the state and the government provide the same service, it becomes two tiered, and it also drives up the price of the private sector, as in education (even though the private sector is almost always better than the government in both education and health care).

By the way, in America, the building of roads was justified by Ike to ensure National Security.

Vittos Ordination: Yet, it seems as though the autonomy of the citizen is not the first interest of any State. Control appears to be the ultimate end of the State; autonomy is antithetical to this control, and is infringed upon at every opportunity.

I thought we were speaking in general terms about the perfect state, what the purpose of the state should be, not what it actually is.

Referring to the present state of the State, although you are correct that governments worldwide are exhibiting far too much control over its citizenry. In much of the Western World, however, there is a general level of autonomy that is superior than most of what society has ever known. It continues to advance and approach anarchy.

How can you say that the protection of it's citizens' autonomy is a State's purpose when the nature of the State - that is, the sacrifice of a degree of autonomy in order to enter into the social contract - renders autonomy less than it could be under, say, anarchy?

The make up and enforcement of the social contract should only serve to protect the autonomy from the State, outside governments, and other citizens. Anything outside of that should not be permitted.

You mean... types of people like Jews, and Blacks? Gays? Intellectuals?
Jews maybe. Not blacks, gays or intellectuals.
People who are born without arms and legs.
Stupid people.
Also people with life threatening illnesses that we can prove are hereditary should not be allowed to breed.

That is what I believe a perfect world would be like. But as I know I am unlikely to ever find many people supporting me on that I shall in my life concentrate on other issues.

The primary purpose of the state is to ensure the survival of the state.

And there it is.

Robbopolis: For the sake of convenience, let's call that "justice." Why does the State exist to do this? Arguably, many States do not punish the wicked and reward the good; indeed, oftentimes it is the wicked who are rewarded, or who at least get away with their behavior, whilst the "good" are downtrodden, ignored. Take Russia, China, a few Slavic States and any number of Latin American countries. If you're a murderer or an exploiter of men, you're doing great in those countries, and if you're a simple man [or woman!] who tries to live well then you're probably quite oppressed. Knowing this, can you still say that it is the purpose of the State to dispense justice, when it is obvious that many States do not, and have not always done so through history?

Those governments who are not promoting justice are shirking their responsibilities, and hence deserve to be supplanted. Generally, that would mean internal revolution, although that is pretty unrealistic in most of the countries that you mentioned.

Ideally, the state should exist only for providing public land to facilitate trade and travel, minting currency, and protecting the populace from internal and external violence, fraud and theft.

You know, all those evil capitalist principles about not assaulting people or taking their belongings. Once we exact our evil plot, acts of force, theft and fraud will be illegal under our evil capitalist laws! Mohahahaha!

I thought we were speaking in general terms about the perfect state, what the purpose of the state should be, not what it actually is.I'm sorry, that's a miscommunication on my part; I can see how it was vague. Yes, I am more interested in the reality of the matter, not the ideal.

Referring to the present state of the State, although you are correct that governments worldwide are exhibiting far too much control over its citizenry. In much of the Western World, however, there is a general level of autonomy that is superior than most of what society has ever known. It continues to advance and approach anarchy.I would tend to disagree. In Western Europe we can see a move towards Socialism, or at least a Socialist-inspired model of economics and government. The economic policies of the welfare state must, by their very nature, restrict the ecnomic freedom and autonomy of it's citizenry. Russia is an example of the opposite; economic autonomy is protected, yet political and civil autonomy is restricted and continues to tighten. Even in the United States we can see minor intrusions on economic and civil autonomy. While I agree that we have more freedom today than 500 years ago, I do not believe we are moving towards anarchy; indeed, as the State continues to stabilize, it will grow more authoritarian and any semblance to anarchy will fade away.

The make up and enforcement of the social contract should only serve to protect the autonomy from the State, outside governments, and other citizens. Anything outside of that should not be permitted.Do you mind if I ask why? The government can serve many functions which at least in the immediate future benefit the individual as well as society as a whole. Why should personal autonomy be the primary purpose of government?

To protect and preserve the autonomy of the people.
By oppressing them and taking away their autonomy:)

J/k

So what do you think the purpose of the State, or government, is? It can serve many functions. It can make war, protect the liberty of it's citizens, regulate commerce, police it's citizenry, promote social equality and economic equality, or maintain a superstructure for society.

While the State can do all of this things, what do you think the ultimate purpose, or motivation, for the State is? I don't speak specifically of the United States or German or Russian or Chinese or Austrailian government... I mean the concept of the State itself. For what purpose is it formed, and for what purpose does it persist? To you, in your dreams, and in reality?

The purpose of a state is not to defend liberty. If you have no state then you have liberty. You also have a lot of danger, but that's the price you pay.

The purpose of the state is not to make war. You have plenty of violence without states, you don't need to organize a state to fix the rampant pacifism.

The purpose of the state is to redistribute wealth. If there was no way to redistribute wealth then we'd all have to get our own food. Not at the supermarket, but out of the ground, out of the trees, and out of the ground. Sure we've got people who think that "redistribution of wealth" means communism, but it doesn't. All states redistribute wealth, even the most capitalist of them.

Ideally the redistribution should take the form of trade laws that make food and shelter likely to end up in the hands of those who need it. For example when Bush was governer of Texas he used emminent domain laws to declare privatly owned hunting grounds condemned so that he could give it to his friend. This is a redistribution of wealth to steal for the sake of the rich. The republican mayor of NYC is trying to do the same thing with an office building because the owner of the office next door wants to expand, and is friends with the mayor.

So the purpose of the state is to see to it that as many people as possible have food and shelter. The most efficient way to do that is to enact laws that make it fairly easy to amass a small fortune (food and shelter earn enough in 5 days to pay for 7.01 days) and fairly hard to amass and maintain a large fortune (mansions all over the country and you never have to work another day in your life enough money to live off of for 50 years will be enough for 60 years by the end of the week).

None of this is to say that liberty and security and so on aren't important. They are. They're just not the reason for states. People will give up liberty and security to avoid starvation, they just shouldn't have to.

By oppressing them and taking away their autonomy:)

J/k

Yeah, you and your socialists cronies want us all to be slaves your economic whim, don't you.

The state has two purposes.

1: Actively protect the freedoms of its citizens.

2: Ensure SocioEconomic welfare for its citizens.

Basically prevent force or fraud from being committed against its citizens, and punish those who do committ force or fraud

I would tend to disagree. In Western Europe we can see a move towards Socialism, or at least a Socialist-inspired model of economics and government. The economic policies of the welfare state must, by their very nature, restrict the ecnomic freedom and autonomy of it's citizenry. Russia is an example of the opposite; economic autonomy is protected, yet political and civil autonomy is restricted and continues to tighten. Even in the United States we can see minor intrusions on economic and civil autonomy. While I agree that we have more freedom today than 500 years ago, I do not believe we are moving towards anarchy; indeed, as the State continues to stabilize, it will grow more authoritarian and any semblance to anarchy will fade away.

No, I hardly believe that governments are growing more authoritarian. Much of the socialistic properties of Western Governments are for protecting individual rights. Wealth redistribution can be used to help free the markets by spreading economic power. While I agree that there are socialist tendencies that do not fit into what I believe should be the mode of government, I still believe that we are shifting towards a leveled hierarchy amongst the State.

Do you mind if I ask why? The government can serve many functions which at least in the immediate future benefit the individual as well as society as a whole. Why should personal autonomy be the primary purpose of government?

Society was formed by individuals and was meant to benefit the individual. Running society based on what is best for society rather than what is best for the individuals that make up the society is antithetical to the original purpose of society. So society should be organized in a way that allows the individual to act in a way that most benefits him/herself.

The state has two purposes.

1: Actively protect the freedoms of its citizens.

2: Ensure SocioEconomic welfare for its citizens.

hahaahah nope and nope.

to quote a quote from the manic street preachers son

"The primary role of goverment is to protect property from the majoirity."

Dont know who orignally.

To protect freedom, if there was no state, we would be completey free to do whatever we wanted, so thats a nope.

hahaha ensure socioeconomic welfare, well the best of intentions dont mean squat, i think youll find the western goverments are quite happy with the class system as it is, and well the last bunch of goverments who tried.. well.

hahaahah nope and nope.

to quote a quote from the manic street preachers son

"The primary role of goverment is to protect property from the majoirity."

Dont know who orignally.

To protect freedom, if there was no state, we would be completey free to do whatever we wanted, so thats a nope.

hahaha ensure socioeconomic welfare, well the best of intentions dont mean squat, i think youll find the western goverments are quite happy with the class system as it is, and well the last bunch of goverments who tried.. well.

I'm fully aware of how far any government is from actually doing its duty, and just how despicable the situation is. However, these are the jobs the government is SUPPOSED to be doing, and NOTHING else.

I'm fully aware of how far any government is from actually doing its duty, and just how despicable the situation is. However, these are the jobs the government is SUPPOSED to be doing, and NOTHING else.

Well in that case it really depends on the ideology,
U.k for example its at the moment under the labour party, trying to keep everyone nice and safe but not free and giving everyone an equal footing in life(which i like more), where as in the U.S i just imagine its trying to give certain consitutialnised freedoms and providing the ability for anyone to get rich/richer.

Iran on the other hand is around to try and make you the best Muslim possible

What is the point of the state if it serves itself rather than the people? The state is there to serve the people otherwise it is pointless to maintain.

What is the point of the state if it serves itself rather than the people? The state is there to serve the people otherwise it is pointless to maintain.

The primary purpose of the state is to perpetuate itself and ensure its survival, for if the state does not exist, how can it serve any other purpose?

What is the point of the state if it serves itself rather than the people? The state is there to serve the people otherwise it is pointless to maintain.

pointless prehaps, but that hasunt stoped about 90% of the states in history and prehaps now existing has it, i like your principles but most people dont have them.

The primary purpose of the state is to perpetuate itself and ensure its survival, for if the state does not exist, how can it serve any other purpose?

The states survival is needed to continue serving the people and therefore survival is not primary but secondary

pointless prehaps, but that hasunt stoped about 90% of the states in history and prehaps now existing has it, i like your principles but most people dont have them.


true - it's only an opininon anyways, but I think it an be argued that the state was created by the people for the people

The states survival is needed to continue serving the people and therefore survival is not primary but secondary
You wish.

It doesn't work like that in real life.

true - it's only an opinion anyways, but I think it an be argued that the state was created by the people for the people

bleh the monarchies and theocracies ect ect ect, only case where that is true is in republics, democracies and communist 'republics', which all bar the Athenian democracy and republican Rome are a product of basically the 18th cent onwards

but I think it [c]an be argued that the state was created by the people for the people

not on my planet

To educate, create jobs, and protect.

An ideal state is like an ideal serial killer.

bleh the monarchies and theocracies ect ect ect, only case where that is true is in republics, democracies and communist 'republics', which all bar the Athenian democracy and republican Rome are a product of basically the 18th cent onwardsI would note that Rome and Athens were not the only democracies/republics of Antiquity. Carthage, for example, was a Republic like Rome. There were many monarchies, oligarchies and dictatorships during that period, but republics were also common forms of government. Thus, it cannot be said that they are "recent inventions" in government.