NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I've been on these forums for a while now, and I thought I might
finally start a thread by myself.

Inspired by the continuous debates about libertarians vs socialists,
taxes vs social security and so on, I would like to explore the core of
the issue at hand.

So what do you believe to be the "purpose" of society? I've come up with
two alternatives, which are not the same, and which form the core
assumption of completely different constructs.

Is society a framework for every individual to achieve the best it can;
or is it a system in which the aggregate, the total outcome should be
the greatest?

Nash has shown in his work in game theory that Adam Smith's assumption
that when every individual maximises utility, all people will be better
off, is incorrect. There are cases in which this doesn't happen (I refer
you to the "prisoner's dilemma"). So therefore these two systems are not
the same.
---------------------
Following assumption one:
Society is a framework for every individual to achieve the best it can!

If this is the case, taxes are a disincentive to achieve. Since some of
your benefit will be taken away, and you always seek to put cost =
benefit, the cost(ie effort) you are willing to pay is less.
Also, welfare will reduce your willingness to work, as any effort you
put in must be bigger than the welfare you currently get.

I personally am not a proponent of this. As I said, Nash has shown that,
not only will some be worse off (ie the losers in the market), but also
that the winners will be worse off than they could possibly have been.
The Prisoner's dilemma of course points to collusion as a means of
avoiding that, but monopolies cause dead-weight losses, which is
suboptimal as well.
---------------------
Following assumption two:
Society is a system in which the aggregate, the total happiness should
be the greatest!

That would mean that when you add up all the utilities in society, you
seek to optimise that number.
If that is the case, then diminishing returns come into the picture.
If you have no money, and then you get $100, you can buy food. That will
increase your happiness (utility) a lot, since you won't starve to
death.
If you have $10,000, you might buy a trailer to live in. That'll be
increase you utility by quite a bit, since you don't have to live on the
street.
If you have $1,000,000 you could buy a flash house and a Ferrari. But,
will your utility increase by a lot from say, $500,000?

The Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns says no. If you just keep adding
more money, the actual gain you get out of one dollar becomes smaller
and smaller.
Said differently, if you are Bill Gates, an extra $100 does little for
you, while a homeless bum might be quite happy with the same $100.

Therefore, the money that I tax the rich (eg 50%) will be better spent
by giving it to the poor, who will derive greater utility from it. That
could be in welfare or in social security, or in public schooling and
healthcare.
--------------------
So my question to you:

Which idea do you believe in?
What are your reasons for doing so?
Work towards a well constructed and argued set of philosophies.


Maybe that'll help find out why both sides hate each other so much, why crackpot right-wingers and liberal whinos think the way they do, and maybe it'll even sway a few minds one way or the other.

Gotta go with the first option. Its a very simple rationale, so I'll keep it as short and sweet as it really is.

Neighbors shouldn't control each other's property, colleagues shouldn't manage each others time, and institutions shouldn't delegate to citizens when they can and cannot be active or dealt with. Every person has the right to live his own life as far as his or her own will carry it. So why in the world should I direct the actions of others, and why should I let anyone else direct mine?

There's a difference between ordering someone in order to get a job done, or influencing someone to accept your position; and controlling someone's existence to the point where they hold their own opinions, thoughts, or intentions. Barry's book on Jennifer Government is a perfect example of what can happen if that became the system in place.

Contrary to your definition of society though, society is a body that is built without purpose. It never acquires a purpose, it just is. That's like asking "What's the purpose of the universe?" There is none. It just exists. Some think of society as the case of it being a world. Others think of it as a conscience entity. Honestly, society should not try to do anything. It should just let people develop and "succeed or fail at their own merits."

Were I inclined to vote on the poll - which I'm not - I'd go for 'Society is a system in which the aggregate, the total happiness should be the greatest!'

Why? Uh... because it's true. But you want more detail than that.

Mm-kay. Because I'm altruistic. I don't like to see people suffer when they don't have to. I can't imagine there are many people who do - and yet they still wander around saying 'Oh, well, I've got mine, they should work for their money'. It just... rubs me the wrong way, I guess, seeing people do that.

Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about it. Give money to the beggars on the street (Not that there are many around here)? Well, considering they're all either a) Drunk at the time of asking for money - which kinda implies that they'd not spend it on something responsible - or b) Playing rather expensive looking musical instruments - implying that the money I could give them really wouldn't be very helpful - I don't tend to do so. About all I do towards increasing happiness overall is holding doors open for people.

So what should be done about it? Heh - if I knew that, I'd know everything. All my ideas are rather... extreme.

Contrary to your definition of society though, society is a body that is built without purpose. It never acquires a purpose, it just is. That's like asking "What's the purpose of the universe?" There is none. It just exists. Some think of society as the case of it being a world. Others think of it as a conscience entity. Honestly, society should not try to do anything. It should just let people develop and "succeed or fail at their own merits."

Well, this thread can just end right now. Saudbany has answered the question quite thoroughly and accuratly. :D

Down with the collectivist mentality! Individualism is the basis of a truly free society...

the problem with the first one is that it seemes to be made on the assumption that all people have equal opportunities and the truth is that they don't. sure, there are individuals that rise from poverty to become important, influencial people (Abe Lincoln), but not everybody is capable of doing that. people aren't the same and are not all capable of making it on their own, so obviously it almost becomes a survival of the fittest except that instead of surviving, you're attempting to live well and fairly easily, become powerful or whatever.
the problem with that is that the point of society is eliminate the survival of the fittest rule by having individuals work together to create the greatest outcome for the majority. so really the first option just goes against the whole point of society and civilization.

Maybe that'll help find out why both sides hate each other so much, why crackpot right-wingers and liberal whinos think the way they do, and maybe it'll even sway a few minds one way or the other.

For the most part, I'd like to agree with the first scenario, and why I say LIKE to is this: No matter how successful I am, I can't go to sleep at night knowing that there are people, animals, and environments out there suffering for want of simple help, and that I have done nothing. I have a conscience, and because of this, I am obligated to help.

I can't just walk past a person on the street in obvious need, and I would like to think that in a first world country, there would be systems in place to provide for people like this; and even if that means that some money is taken out of my paycheck to provide for these people, a good night's sleep is worth that much to me.

Here's a question: Who helps the starving, homeless children? Until society is altruistic enough, which most aren't, the collective must act. When society is altruistic enough, then we can focus on the children, because there will be no hunger and homelessness. So right now, and probably during my entire lifetime, the latter.

Well, I've been on these forums for a while now, and I thought I might
finally start a thread by myself.

Inspired by the continuous debates about libertarians vs socialists,
taxes vs social security and so on, I would like to explore the core of
the issue at hand.

So what do you believe to be the "purpose" of society? I've come up with
two alternatives, which are not the same, and which form the core
assumption of completely different constructs.

[ snippage ]

Maybe that'll help find out why both sides hate each other so much, why crackpot right-wingers and liberal whinos think the way they do, and maybe it'll even sway a few minds one way or the other.
It's specious to suggest that society has one "purpose." There are many purposes for a viable society:

* To provide a framework within which people can function, communicate, relate and cooperate.

* To restrain those who otherwise would oppress others in some way.

* To protect the genetic inheritance of its members.

* To provide a common basis for understanding among its members.

* Etc.

For the most part, I'd like to agree with the first scenario, and why I say LIKE to is this: No matter how successful I am, I can't go to sleep at night knowing that there are people, animals, and environments out there suffering for want of simple help, and that I have done nothing. I have a conscience, and because of this, I am obligated to help.

You can give to charity what ever the government would have taken from your pay check. It's my belief that it should be your choice whether you give. You can be allowed to spend your money as you wish and still choose to give to those less fortunate then you.

The problem is that many people wouldn't do that. It's sad, but that's too bad. I don't think I should have a right to anyone else's money. Although, by supporting political candidates that would preserve the socialist programs that are present in a country, I guess people are giving their support to those programs. So, in the United States, I guess I do have a right to try to get access to some of people's earnings.

Here's a question: Who helps the starving, homeless children?
People like you.

Until society is altruistic enough, which most aren't, the collective must act. When society is altruistic enough, then we can focus on the children, because there will be no hunger and homelessness. So right now, and probably during my entire lifetime, the latter.
If you honesltly think "no hunger and no homelessness" is a valid concept, you're sorely mistaken. It's like Commissar Danilov said in Enemy at the Gates: "There will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts; poor in gifts. Rich in love; poor in love."

Essentially what you're demanding then you say something like "the collective must act" is "the collective must force people to be 'altruistic,'" which is a self-defeating concept when the use of force is involved. In a truly free society, I'm allowed to hoard my cash every bit as much as you're allowed to join a commune and hand all your wages out to bums who can't work or don't want to work.

The typical Socialist retort to such a proposition is "Well, in such a system, society will prove to be too selfish to give anything to others."

Well, if that's the case, then that's society's perogative now isn't it? You can't claim to be a champion of society on one hand and then turn around and with your next breath tell me--nay, demand of me that society must conform to this standard because it is 'morally right,' which it isn't. You can't champion society and condemn its actions when it doesn't act as you wish. That's called 'hypocrisy.'

People like you.
My friend, you know there'll never be enough people with enough resources to effectively deal with the aforementioned problems with a mindset similar to Spaam's.

If you honesltly think "no hunger and no homelessness" is a valid concept, you're sorely mistaken. It's like Commissar Danilov said in Enemy at the Gates: "There will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts; poor in gifts. Rich in love; poor in love."
It's not as open-and-shut a question as either of you make it seem. Of course society won't ever be like Thomas More's Utopia, but it also doesn't have to be as it is right now. Dealing with hunger and homelessness is not a something that we can say "Mission accomplished" to, but a continual process of obligation toward the Other whose suffering places an obligation on us. This obligation doesn't go away, because the paradox of society is that the system which is best positioned to provide enough resources to deal with starvation and homelessness (capitalism) inherently creates inequalities. The question is how, within a capitalist framework, society can be made as just as possible.

Essentially what you're demanding then you say something like "the collective must act" is "the collective must force people to be 'altruistic,'" which is a self-defeating concept when the use of force is involved. In a truly free society, I'm allowed to hoard my cash every bit as much as you're allowed to join a commune and hand all your wages out to bums who can't work or don't want to work.
It's certainly not "self-defeating" in that it does accomplish its goals better than the alternative, but I do have to give you there's a level of violence in it. That's because the state itself is predicated on having a monopoly on legitimate violence, because a collective of individuals decided society would be a better place with that sort of centralized control. Therefore, if the state's role is to protect the greater good of society, and wealth redistribution is in the greater good, this sort of "forced altruism" is a legitimate state function.

The typical Socialist retort to such a proposition is "Well, in such a system, society will prove to be too selfish to give anything to others."

Well, if that's the case, then that's society's perogative now isn't it? You can't claim to be a champion of society on one hand and then turn around and with your next breath tell me--nay, demand of me that society must conform to this standard because it is 'morally right,' which it isn't. You can't champion society and condemn its actions when it doesn't act as you wish. That's called 'hypocrisy.'
You're equivocating the word "society" here. When he/she says society, he means the collective state identity. The other meaning of society you use is personal civil society, that is, the individual identities that exist outside the state. He/she "champions" the role of the collective/state in making civil society a more just place.

Anyway, the basis for economic intervention is not a question of morality. That's a misnomer. It's really more a question of justice, particularly the subset called "redistributive justice," which is the study of how the resources of society should be used/distributed. Of course, one could make a moral (which in this context I assume you mean rights/deontological) justification for the modern liberal theory of redistributive justice, but one could also make the case in different ways (utilitarian ones, for example).

I agree when you say society has no purpose as such, no absolute reason society exists.
But, we as people who live in a society make up our meaning of it. And then it becomes a central point.
Do we think society needs to simply let everyone do as they please, even though the outcome as a whole may be worse than it could be?

As to private charities, they'll never be even remotely as well equipped to deal with the problems of the poor as the state is. Only the state has powers far-reaching enough to not only sustain a bad situation without making it worse, but to actually improve it.

I always thought of taxes as the rent you pay for the right to live somewhere. You use many goods and services that are paid for with taxes, that wouldn't be provided by private industry.
In America there is of course a strange relationship of people with the state, something that may have come from the settlers, the Wild West and everyone's his own best friend. (But that's not the topic.)
You have to pay for state-provided goods and services nonetheless, otherwise it would be stealing them, right?

And being a socialist doesn't mean you're hypocritical. It is simply a belief that individuals who for whatever reason lost out should be supported. That some of the tax money is used for that is a legitimate proposition for a socialist, since it is only because such "losers" exist that the winners enjoy their winnings.

Also, if it's not too intrusive:
If you do oppose taxation as such and are completely libertarian, then what is your background? What kind of job did your parents do? What kind of schooling did you have?
And the same for the socialists? Where are you coming from?

<snip> And the same for the socialists? Where are you coming from?
I don't like to think of myself as a socialist as I generally resist categorization. But it's closest to my views on this forum, so I guess this applies to me.

Family of intellectuals in the most recent generation.

My friend, you know there'll never be enough people with enough resources to effectively deal with the aforementioned problems with a mindset similar to Spaam's.
I do? Really? Of course I don't. And you don't either. Stop making assumptions like this, they're not making you or anyone else look good. The only people that are worth helping, in this sense, are the folks who cannot for whatever reason contribute anything to society on their own. In America, for example, we have a problem called "laziness." Many of the popularly invoked "35 million poor people" fall under this category. Fuck them.

Even if there arent enough people to deal with this, how is it my problem? With ever-growing populations and rapidly expanding economically disadvantaged demographics, the problem is assuredly impossible to solve completely in the first place. The only thing we can hope to do is minimize it.

It's not as open-and-shut a question as either of you make it seem. Of course society won't ever be like Thomas More's Utopia, but it also doesn't have to be as it is right now. Dealing with hunger and homelessness is not a something that we can say "Mission accomplished" to, but a continual process of obligation toward the Other whose suffering places an obligation on us.
I don't have an obligation to these people. The fact that they're suffering is a circumstance that is in no feasible capacity related to my actions or preferences within or about society. The idea that I or anyone else "owes a debt to society" is contingent on the idea that I'm responsible for things that occured before my birth. The social inequalities and suffering which have been going on in this country are far more pervasive and widesperead than the policy decisions and changes of the last 20 years.

This obligation doesn't go away, because the paradox of society is that the system which is best positioned to provide enough resources to deal with starvation and homelessness (capitalism) inherently creates inequalities. The question is how, within a capitalist framework, society can be made as just as possible.
Wrong. Like I just said, this obligation doesn't exist. Not in the broader sense it doesn't; it exists only in the minds of those who want it that way. Inequality is a fact of life, it's a part of reality because as we can plainly see, people aren't created equal, contrary to what our founding fathers would have us think.

It's certainly not "self-defeating" in that it does accomplish its goals better than the alternative, but I do have to give you there's a level of violence in it. That's because the state itself is predicated on having a monopoly on legitimate violence, because a collective of individuals decided society would be a better place with that sort of centralized control.
Yes, and we all know that popular = right. Please, spare me!

Therefore, if the state's role is to protect the greater good of society, and wealth redistribution is in the greater good, this sort of "forced altruism" is a legitimate state function.
Ick. You're telling me it's more efficient or somehow more justified for government to tell society to do about these things than for society to tell itself? We're getting back to this Utilitarian vs. Objectivism argument, and by damn I'm just about ready to take you to the mat on it.

You're equivocating the word "society" here. When he/she says society, he means the collective state identity. The other meaning of society you use is personal civil society, that is, the individual identities that exist outside the state. He/she "champions" the role of the collective/state in making civil society a more just place.
Right, and I'm saying that government should be an extention of society; it should be held to more or less the same standards. What I'm doing here is I'm drawing upon a hypothetical [which I don't generally prefer to do, but at times it remains an effective means of proving a point] wherein society gets to make its own decisions. Like my brother said in that other thread, government should exist to safeguard lives, not to direct them.

Anyway, the basis for economic intervention is not a question of morality. That's a misnomer.
Ouch. It should be. It's all to often an error of philosophy to compartmentalize concepts such as this, that is to say to endorse an aspect of economic or political theory without taking into account its effects on the remainder of civilization. Economic, social, and political intervention should be held to the same noncontradictory standard.

It's really more a question of justice, particularly the subset called "redistributive justice," which is the study of how the resources of society should be used/distributed. Of course, one could make a moral (which in this context I assume you mean rights/deontological) justification for the modern liberal theory of redistributive justice, but one could also make the case in different ways (utilitarian ones, for example).
Back to Objectivism vs. Utilitarianism which as you aptly noted earlier, is the heart of just about all of our disagreements. I'm more than happy to deconstruct utilitarianism for you, provided you're ready to listen to reason.

I'm all for option #2 without which I would be royally f*****. The reason for this is that I am a schizotypal-psychotic and if I didn't live in a wellfare state, I wouldn't be able to afford medication or therapy. My parents (dad, senior seargent. mom, child-care professional) would be able to help me financially, but since they are both in a low income bracket it would take a hard toll on their economy. Also, it would be unfair for my parents to foot the bill.

I do? Really? Of course I don't. And you don't either. Stop making assumptions like this, they're not making you or anyone else look good. The only people that are worth helping, in this sense, are the folks who cannot for whatever reason contribute anything to society on their own. In America, for example, we have a problem called "laziness." Many of the popularly invoked "35 million poor people" fall under this category. Fuck them.
Attempts at tax evasion would prove the point that the people with resources to help society don't care enough to contribute without state compulsion.

It's also unfair to characterize the majority of America's poor as "lazy." Most of them either were laid off from their job and can't get another one, just couldn't get a job in the first place, work at the worse jobs imaginable in order to attempt to survive, or are incapable due to circumstances beyond their control to work. These things are out of their control; they didn't make a conscious decision not to be able to provide for themselves. The ability was taken out of their hands. So no, don't fuck them.

Even if there arent enough people to deal with this, how is it my problem? With ever-growing populations and rapidly expanding economically disadvantaged demographics, the problem is assuredly impossible to solve completely in the first place. The only thing we can hope to do is minimize it.
We actually do agree on this; I just expressed it in more sympathetic, flowery, and obscure language. LBJ's "war on poverty" probably never could be ultimately won, but things could be a damn sight better than they are now.

I don't have an obligation to these people. The fact that they're suffering is a circumstance that is in no feasible capacity related to my actions or preferences within or about society. The idea that I or anyone else "owes a debt to society" is contingent on the idea that I'm responsible for things that occured before my birth. The social inequalities and suffering which have been going on in this country are far more pervasive and widesperead than the policy decisions and changes of the last 20 years.
No, it's contingent on your acceptance of the legitimacy of the state. If it's cool for the state to use your resources to protect society from crime or foreign invasion, then you've inherently accepted the idea that the role of the state is to provide for the welfare of its citizens. If that's true, then the state also has to provide for those who've been fucked over. The conception of "debt to society" is much more complicated than it initially seems.

Wrong. Like I just said, this obligation doesn't exist. Not in the broader sense it doesn't; it exists only in the minds of those who want it that way. Inequality is a fact of life, it's a part of reality because as we can plainly see, people aren't created equal, contrary to what our founding fathers would have us think.
I could go into a long, long, LONG discussion on the question of the infinite obligation to the Other, why it exists, and why its existance is key to creating a truly just society, but enormous books have been written on that subject, and I don't have the energy to summarize them here. Later, then, if you wish.

When they said people are created equal, it was meant in terms of moral status, not intellectual or physical abilities. All, when born, are endowed with certain rights as humans. One of the premises of the American government is protecting those rights.

Yes, and we all know that popular = right. Please, spare me!
You very much misunderstand my argument. It's not an Ad Populum fallacy, although I can see how I might have been interpreted that way. I explained the argument earlier in this post in a clearer manner. It concerns the consequences of the intellectual endorsement of any state apparatus, and the assumptions that go in to that endorsement.

Ick. You're telling me it's more efficient or somehow more justified for government to tell society to do about these things than for society to tell itself? We're getting back to this Utilitarian vs. Objectivism argument, and by damn I'm just about ready to take you to the mat on it.
I'll cover this at the end. Although it was in part answered above.

Right, and I'm saying that government should be an extention of society; it should be held to more or less the same standards. What I'm doing here is I'm drawing upon a hypothetical [which I don't generally prefer to do, but at times it remains an effective means of proving a point] wherein society gets to make its own decisions. Like my brother said in that other thread, government should exist to safeguard lives, not to direct them.
Again, this is answere above. The state is by definition a different entity than society; they exist in part to check and provide safeguards on each other. They each play totally different roles, and thus should be held to different standards. Actors don't have the same training as flight attendants because they do different things. Same thing here.

If government's purpose is to safeguard lives, then it has a duty to protect the lives of those individuals threatened by societal apathy and indifference to their plight. Their lives will be lost without government intervention: that's no different than a police officer walking right by a murder or the army failing to stop an invasion in that they are both derelictions of the state's duty to safeguard life.

Ouch. It should be. It's all to often an error of philosophy to compartmentalize concepts such as this, that is to say to endorse an aspect of economic or political theory without taking into account its effects on the remainder of civilization. Economic, social, and political intervention should be held to the same noncontradictory standard.
I was being nitpicky about terminology. It has no real bearing on the rest of the discussion.

Back to Objectivism vs. Utilitarianism which as you aptly noted earlier, is the heart of just about all of our disagreements. I'm more than happy to deconstruct utilitarianism for you, provided you're ready to listen to reason.
OK. Let's do this. I'm going to start a thread, tommorow, in which we will discuss the issue at great depth. As of right now, I must sleep. Tommorow, I will show why utilitarianism is one of the most commonly misunderstood moral philosophies and why it is the one best suited for political application.
EDIT: Ok, that was a bit grandiose. But I like ending with a flourish.

Fair enough. Rather than continue the conversation here, I'll just wait for your thread. Pretty much all of this, along with the epistemological and ethical implications of these concepts are likely to be repeated there. Gotta save my ammo anyway.

I must say, I greatly admire the strength of your convictions, even if I disagree with them with every cell of my being. You clearly believe what you say, which is a virtue not to be ignored. An argument like this will not go anywhere unless we each have some modicum of respect for each other, which I'd guess we do.

Fair enough. Rather than continue the conversation here, I'll just wait for your thread. Oretty much all of this, along with the epistemological and ethical implications of these concepts are likely to be repeated there anyway. Gotta save my ammo anyway.

I must say, I greatly admire the strength of your convictions, even if I disagree with them with every cell of my being. You clearly believe what you say, which is a virtue not to be ignored. An argument like this will not go anywhere unless we each have some modicum of respect for each other, which I'd guess we do.
Thank you. I feel the same way about you. Both of us really believe what we're saying, and the mutual respect gives us at least some ability to listen to what the other is saying, even if we're at polar opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue (I'd expect our social views and philosophy would line up quite nicely). Till tommorow!

I have bookmarked this thread to catch up later, time for sleep now, but I want to comment that I am surprised to keep on seeing the old, tired "poor, unemployed = lazy".

I'll make this simple, and I will specifically refute it for the 2nd time on this forum. For your arguement to work you have to assume that everyone can get a job in free-market capitalism and everyone can get equal pay for equal effort in free-market capitalism. Both assumptions are false.

1) While, in the short-run, free-market capitalism does reward increased effort, i.e. productivity, there is a disincentive for working hard in the long-run. Furthermore, wage isn't largely determined by effort but by the supply and demand of the particular work that laborer x is providing. A lazy lawyer will most likely make much more than the most industrious janitor in the history of mankind given current market conditions.

2) There are many types of unemployement, of which most are out of the hands of the unemployed. Cyclical unemployement is caused by recessionary periods. Seasonal unemployement is caused by certain industries only requiring labor duing certain seasons. Other unemployement is the result of technological innovation and job "outsourcing". The most that any one person can do is invest money to retrain themselves in the case of seasonal, techonological, and "outsourcing" unemployement. Of course, when you start out poor that is easier said than done.

But the various types of unemployement aside, there is the theory that our economy cannot support more than a certain, though unknown, amount of workers. This is called the natural rate of unemployement and cannot be breached by our economic system because we would experiencing an expodential growth of inflation.

If you care to research this look up the Phillips curve. It went screwy during stagflation (what didn't?), but has settled back down into the predictable curve it had before.

So can you heartless conservatives get over the whole lazy rant already?

I hate to make generalisations, but...

Problem with America, is that a lot of Americans are self-centred. No sense of fellow man. Why do you think Bush is in? Because if you can't succeed you must be lazy. And you people wonder why I'm cynical...

For the Love of Christ, I did not say all poor people are lazy! Stop putting these goddamn words in my mouth, people! Christ, learn how to take things in context!

For the Love of Christ, I did not say all poor people are lazy! Stop putting these goddamn words in my mouth, people! Christ, learn how to take things in context!

/sigh

Melkor, buddy, look, I didn't say that you said all people were lazy.

I know you didn't.

That isn't my point.

I'm saying that even if every single American was an industrious and ambitious worker, there would still be unemployement.

Laziness doesn't cause unemployement in the aggregate sense. It is irrelvant.

but I want to comment that I am surprised to keep on seeing the old, tired "poor, unemployed = lazy".

So can you heartless conservatives get over the whole lazy rant already?

Enough said.

Also, don't call me a 'conservative' ever again, please. My point here is the amount of people who actually can't work is far fewer than the amount of people our system currently supports, which means in turn that it would take less money from fewer people than you think to minimize or "solve" this problem. I don't know where people get the idea that supporting less than ten percent of our population would be such a demanding strain on our resources.

He's not conservative, just American. There's a difference, you know...

to the original poster:

I believe in neither idea, since the former, as you have pointed out, leads to reduced overall outcomes, and the latter does not seem to take into account personal responsibility or accomplishment at all, since Bill Gates at least did something to earn the $100 (and might in fact spend that money more productively than the hobo), while the hobo did nothing to earn the money. While maximizing utility is, in a vaccuum, a good thing, there needs to be a balance that allows us to help out the less fortunate without giving nonproducers a free ride.

In fact, giving the hobo Bill's money does not guarantee an overall raise in utility even though the utlity for the money is so much higher for the hobo than for Bill Gates. There needs to be some kind of system in place that can strive to make sure transfers of wealth actually do result in increases utility for the entire society if you want to have a socialist-esque society.

Okay I'd say you have a serious problem in your poll options. Option 2, which you depict as the sort of root message of socialism, is not really socialist at all. Increasing aggregate happiness with no concern for the individual is utilitarianism in its most basic form.

Socialism, like liberalism, is focused on the individual. Like liberals, they are concerned with individual happiness. The difference lies in the fact that socialists believe that we are so indoctrinated by the mode of production (capitalism) that we we THINK we want is not the same thing as what is best for us, or what we SHOULD want: it deals with revealed knowledge. An analogy would be a subsitence farmer who tithes heavily- a socialist would say that while this farmer may think tithing is in his best interests, it is really not: society has indoctrinated into doing something against his own interests.

Even the rich would be better in a socialist state, according to this theory, because it is based on dialetic- socialism is synonymous with progress, the move towards utopia that is the fundemental goal of socialist thought.

This may not be too clear, but your current poll is fairly disingenious.

What is a "society"? If it is a collection of individuals whose individual activities influence each other (e.g. employment, trade, marriage, friendship, theft, murder...) then why even use the word society? We could just identify the individuals and the interactions relevant to any given situation. The word "society" is superfluous and furthermore can lead to confused thinking. If a "society" anything more than this it is beyond me to imagine what this might in that case be.

A/ Example of confused "society" thinking: Germany invaded Poland so Germany and all Germans are bad.

B/ Example of enlightened individualist thinking: Adolf Hitler ordered some German troops to seize control of Poland and they obeyed therefor Adolf Hitler and those who obeyed him are bad.

In example A we have sown the seeds of prejudice against a group of people simply because of where they live. In example B we have identified the more narrow group of people who are really causing the problem.

Only individuals are capable of forming goals and acting on them (together or seperately). A "society" has no purpose. How on Earth would you decide what it is? The closest you could come would be "What do you want to justify forcing everyone else to do by pretending it is the "real" goal of society?"

Also, it would be unfair for my parents to foot the bill.
Let's force everyone else to then, in the interest of "fairness"....

What is a "society"? If it is a collection of individuals whose individual activities influence each other (e.g. employment, trade, marriage, friendship, theft, murder...) then why even use the word society? We could just identify the individuals and the interactions relevant to any given situation. The word "society" is superfluous and furthermore can lead to confused thinking. If a "society" anything more than this it is beyond me to imagine what this might in that case be.


That's silly, none of the institutions you mention (trade, marriage, etc) would be possible at a purely individual level. Try getting married or trading if you're completely alone. Societies are more than the sum of their individuals, as you implicity state by mentioning those various insititutions- they would all be impossible in an asocial situation.

In terms of what best describes a society, I would say perhaps the polis- the coming together of various people in a cooperative political venture (I don't mean just democracy here, any kind of government really).

A "society" has no purpose.
That's right, society is a tool in the process of telos, of human progress. Without society, you can't be a fully fufilled moral being.

How on Earth would you decide what it is?
Politics, duh. As in Athens, the struggle for determing the good is rooted in discussion demagoguery, etc. There are of course other ways of deciding.

That's silly, none of the institutions you mention (trade, marriage, etc) would be possible at a purely individual level. Try getting married or trading if you're completely alone. Societies are more than the sum of their individuals, as you implicity state by mentioning those various insititutions- they would all be impossible in an asocial situation.
There are individuals and interactions between them. If that is your definition of society then the word is superfluous and misleading. If there is more to it than that then what is it? I think you misunderstood what I said and maybe there isn't any disagreement here at all. I just don't see any point in talking about a "society".

In terms of what best describes a society, I would say perhaps the polis- the coming together of various people in a cooperative political venture (I don't mean just democracy here, any kind of government really).
A government is a group of individuals with power over other individuals. Talking about a "cooperative political venture" is exactly the sort of confusion I worry about. Did the Jews and the Nazis engage in a "cooperative political venture"? You can call it that if you want but you are just going to get lost in a sea of confusing definitions.

That's right, society is a tool in the process of telos, of human progress. Without society, you can't be a fully fufilled moral being.
"Society", "progress" and "fulfilled moral being" are all so vaguely defined that I'm not really sure what you are saying. If you stick to talking about clearly defined things then we can start talking with each other rather than at each other.

Politics, duh. As in Athens, the struggle for determing the good is rooted in discussion demagoguery, etc. There are of course other ways of deciding.
Individuals seek to use political institutions to achieve their goals, "society" does not. The politician wants to get re-elected or redistribute wealth in a particular way or change the law in some way because HE wants it. He may be doing it to for personal profit, to help some group of people, because he believes it will help everyone, because he loves power or, most likely, some combination of the above, but the purpose, the will to act, resides only within him. Similarly for the behaviour of voters, bureaucrats and the police who enforce the edicts. At no point is there a "society" which "acts" in any way, there is only the sum total of the actions and ideas of individuals and the interactions between them.

There are individuals and interactions between them. If that is your definition of society then the word is superfluous and misleading. If there is more to it than that then what is it? I think you misunderstood what I said and maybe there isn't any disagreement here at all. I just don't see any point in talking about a "society".

Where do the interactions come from? Where do individuals come together to engage in these interactions? Asocial individuals, atomized individuals outside of a society, have no interactions, no institutions. Societies are where rules, tradtions, even notions of the self are created, changed and maintained. It is a consistent liberal position to deride society as a term, but it's ultimately foolish- the only man living without society is the noble savage.

A government is a group of individuals with power over other individuals. Talking about a "cooperative political venture" is exactly the sort of confusion I worry about. Did the Jews and the Nazis engage in a "cooperative political venture"? You can call it that if you want but you are just going to get lost in a sea of confusing definitions.


Oooo didn't take long to bring up the Nazis huh ;). The germans WERE engaged in a cooperative political venture, which the Jews were not viewed as a part of, tragically. Similar to ancient groups, societies build different roles for different people. I don't see any confusion here. You don't have to like it, but it's pretty clear I think.

"Society", "progress" and "fulfilled moral being" are all so vaguely defined that I'm not really sure what you are saying. If you stick to talking about clearly defined things then we can start talking with each other rather than at each other.

Progress= Telos in the aristotelian sense, the process of human flourishing

Fufilled moral being= Kryonesis (sp?) in the Aristotelian sense, living a complete moral life- in Athens, for example, running a household and participating in politics. This differs from culture to culture.

I think I'm being fairly clear here

Individuals seek to use political institutions to achieve their goals, "society" does not. The politician wants to get re-elected or redistribute wealth in a particular way or change the law in some way because HE wants it. He may be doing it to for personal profit, to help some group of people, because he believes it will help everyone, because he loves power or, most likely, some combination of the above, but the purpose, the will to act, resides only within him. Similarly for the behaviour of voters, bureaucrats and the police who enforce the edicts. At no point is there a "society" which "acts" in any way, there is only the sum total of the actions and ideas of individuals and the interactions between them.

No, this is not historically true. Again, look at Ancient Greece- actors participated in politics not for personal gain, but in order to be seen as a full person. It is the ACT of politics, not the RESULT the mattered to the Ancient Greeks. Virtu (in the Machiavellian sense) was the goal and measure of progress.

You're using a flawed liberal model to analyze societies which have a different understending of freedom, liberty and political life.

edit

let me clarify a little, we're going to disagree on your understandings of several terms- such as the nature of the individual. Non-liberal do not generally believe in the autonomous atomized individual, so a lot of what you're saying is sort of incoherent from the get go, for example.

Down with the collectivist mentality! Individualism is the basis of a truly free society...
Society is inherently collectivist. Also, we're not talking about a free society so much as a successful and prosperous society.

Where do the interactions come from? Where do individuals come together to engage in these interactions? Asocial individuals, atomized individuals outside of a society, have no interactions, no institutions. Societies are where rules, tradtions, even notions of the self are created, changed and maintained. It is a consistent liberal position to deride society as a term, but it's ultimately foolish- the only man living without society is the noble savage.
The interactions "come from" (?) the individuals who are interacting. I'm not talking about "asocial atomized" individuals so again you've misunderstood me. What more is there than individuals who interact? What is the extra thing other than the sum of the parts?

For instance if I said

... Asocial individuals, atomized individuals outside of a collection of individuals, have no interactions, no institutions. Collections of individuals are where rules, tradtions, even notions of the self are created, changed and maintained.....

then what are you saying that I am not?

Oooo didn't take long to bring up the Nazis huh ;). The germans WERE engaged in a cooperative political venture, which the Jews were not viewed as a part of, tragically. Similar to ancient groups, societies build different roles for different people. I don't see any confusion here. You don't have to like it, but it's pretty clear I think.
Then are drug users, tax resisters, prostitutes and speeding motorists not viewed as part of this "society"? There are some individuals attacking other individuals, at no point does a "society" act. The word is still confusing your brain. Only those Germans who were part of the govt or the Nazi party were part of the "joint venture". Many of them were not. From what you said I would surmise that ALL Germans cooperated with the Nazis, the sort of confusion that leads to all forms of discrimination and prejudice.


Progress= Telos in the aristotelian sense, the process of human flourishing

Equally meaningless.

Fufilled moral being= Kryonesis (sp?) in the Aristotelian sense, living a complete moral life- in Athens, for example, running a household and participating in politics. This differs from culture to culture.

Confusing and irrelevant.

I think I'm being fairly clear here

I'm sorry but you aren't.

No, this is not historically true. Again, look at Ancient Greece- actors participated in politics not for personal gain, but in order to be seen as a full person. It is the ACT of politics, not the RESULT the mattered to the Ancient Greeks. Virtu (in the Machiavellian sense) was the goal and measure of progress.
You've just admitted it! The individuals wanted to be seen as a full person (whatever that means). This was their reason for acting. It is a motive internal to the individuals involved.

You're using a flawed liberal model to analyze societies which have a different understending of freedom, liberty and political life.
No, I'm suggesting that the word "society" is either ill defined or superfluous and leads to confused thinking, as BTW do "freedom" and "liberty" since, as you recognise, they mean different things to everyone.

let me clarify a little, we're going to disagree on your understandings of several terms- such as the nature of the individual. Non-liberal do not generally believe in the autonomous atomized individual, so a lot of what you're saying is sort of incoherent from the get go, for example.
Nobody believes in autonomous atomized individuals! It's a straw man, a parody of what I'm actually saying.

Here's my attempt at clarification. Imagine a collection of soccer balls. Now, each ball is made of atoms and there is nothing more to the ball than the atoms that compose it and the interactions between them. The atoms in this case are like individuals but note that they don't fly along completely on their own like helium atoms in a gas, this would be like the individualist you are parodying, they interact together.

Now, it is sometimes useful to consider a soccer ball as a single object rather than a collection of atoms. If, say, you wanted to calculate it's trajectory it would be hopeless to use elementary particle theory. So, for brevity and convenience, we introduce the idea of a "soccer ball". This works because the atoms move together, they have a stable unity of form. A soccer ball is in this way like a club, a family or a business.

Now we imagine that someone comes along and gives a name to the collection of soccer balls, say he calls it a "herd". Then he kicks the balls over the other side of the park and says "I kicked the herd over there". We might grant him that what he said made some sort of sense but we'd be a bit uncomfortable talking about this "herd". How much sillier would it be if he only kicked half the balls away and then asked "where is the herd?" Clearly we have been led into talking nonsense by creating this artificial and arbitrary concept. The "herd" of soccer balls has no unity of form and so it isn't helpful to use it as a concept, especially when discussing cause and effect.

The concept of "herd" is like the concept of "society". Because it is an arbirtrary artificial notion it leads us into muddled thinking.

I hope this is helpful, I didn't have time to think of a better analogy.

Progress= Telos in the aristotelian sense, the process of human flourishing

Fufilled moral being= Kryonesis (sp?) in the Aristotelian sense, living a complete moral life- in Athens, for example, running a household and participating in politics. This differs from culture to culture.

I think I'm being fairly clear here

Even to a moral philosopher such as myself, these terms are highly unclear. Explain, in everyday English what you mean by these terms from a 2,500 year old culture and how they are relevant to us today please.

The interactions "come from" (?) the individuals who are interacting. I'm not talking about "asocial atomized" individuals so again you've misunderstood me. What more is there than individuals who interact? What is the extra thing other than the sum of the parts?

Well, the interactions themselves, I suppose you could look at it. If you want, the individuals are the players, society is the game. Society is that in which individuals interact- no society, no interactions. A society is more than the sum of its parts, if by that you mean individual actions- languages, histories, etc. are all institutions created by societies, by political action, not by individuals operating in any kind of free market.

For instance if I said

... Asocial individuals, atomized individuals outside of a collection of individuals, have no interactions, no institutions. Collections of individuals are where rules, tradtions, even notions of the self are created, changed and maintained.....

then what are you saying that I am not?

Well, for one if your individuals do not share a society, in this case language, similar trade institutions, etc, they will not interact. Or if these individuals were in fact never socialized- a group of 'noble savages' and a group of people with shared identity, history etc, are two very different things. By conflating 'groups of individuals' and 'societies' you are denying that which makes communities, nations, and political enterprises in general. There is clearly a difference between a group of individuals and a group engaged in a political project (by this I mean not just state-building, but also things like economic activities, which are inherently political in nature).

Then are drug users, tax resisters, prostitutes and speeding motorists not viewed as part of this "society"?

Of course they are. However, they may be punished for transgressing the boundaries of societies.

There are some individuals attacking other individuals, at no point does a "society" act. The word is still confusing your brain.
I disagree. This is in essence the political act; this is the essence of democracy. The will of the people is a social act.

Only those Germans who were part of the govt or the Nazi party were part of the "joint venture". Many of them were not. From what you said I would surmise that ALL Germans cooperated with the Nazis, the sort of confusion that leads to all forms of discrimination and prejudice.

Let me clarify: in as much as the Germans stripped the ability of their citizens to make moral/political choices and discourse, they were not engaged in a cooperative venture. However, other political aspects of the Third Reich could be seen as such a venture: i.e. internal commerce, etc.

Equally meaningless.

err, no it isn't. I just that since you were discussing political philosophy you'd be familiar with Aristotle, who is, after all, one of the fathers of the discipline. Essentially Aristotle believed that we are born incomplete moral beings, i.e. we are not born free, rational, etc. We become full moral beings by living the good life: in Ancient Athens this involved running a household, participating in family life and engaging in politics. The process through which we try and live this 'good life' is called telos. Telos also refers to the potentiality of a thing- telos is the process through which an acorn becomes an oak tree, if you will.

Confusing and irrelevant.

How can you call it irrelevant if you don't know what it means?

Kryonesis is the fully developed form of a thing: so in the example above, an acorn attains kryonesis when it becomes an oak tree. A man attains kryonesis when he lives 'the good life'.

I'm sorry but you aren't.

Again, I thought your familiarity with philosophy was somewhat broader.

You've just admitted it! The individuals wanted to be seen as a full person (whatever that means). This was their reason for acting. It is a motive internal to the individuals involved.

Well, no the individual does not want to be SEEN as a full person, he or she want (or should want) to BE a full person. In the Greek sense this meant having virtu: basically being really, really good at demagoguery. It is a motive internal to the individuals, but at the same time external- it is determined by society, not the individual. Moreover, what the individual believes he or she wants has no connection to what they should do.

No, I'm suggesting that the word "society" is either ill defined or superfluous and leads to confused thinking, as BTW do "freedom" and "liberty" since, as you recognise, they mean different things to everyone.

Again, my definitino of society is: a group of individuals (though they may not think of themselves as such, and the word individual is as contentious as 'society') engaged in a cooperative (though cooperation in this sense could be coerced- just because you're a slave doesn't mean you're not in a society) political venture.

Nobody believes in autonomous atomized individuals! It's a straw man, a parody of what I'm actually saying.

So then in your point of you, what is an individual?

Here's my attempt at clarification. Imagine a collection of soccer balls. Now, each ball is made of atoms and there is nothing more to the ball than the atoms that compose it and the interactions between them. The atoms in this case are like individuals but note that they don't fly along completely on their own like helium atoms in a gas, this would be like the individualist you are parodying, they interact together.

Now, it is sometimes useful to consider a soccer ball as a single object rather than a collection of atoms. If, say, you wanted to calculate it's trajectory it would be hopeless to use elementary particle theory. So, for brevity and convenience, we introduce the idea of a "soccer ball". This works because the atoms move together, they have a stable unity of form. A soccer ball is in this way like a club, a family or a business.

Sure, I can agree with this definition: I think society then rests in the forces that hold the ball together. Atoms without the forces that bind them are not soccer balls, and clearly these forces are different from the atoms themselves.

The concept of "herd" is like the concept of "society". Because it is an arbirtrary artificial notion it leads us into muddled thinking.

I hope this is helpful, I didn't have time to think of a better analogy.

So let me ask you this then in regards to your analogy: Why would we call a soccer ball a soccer ball instead of something like 'a collection of atoms arranged in such and such a way'? Isn't it just as arbitrary?

Even to a moral philosopher such as myself, these terms are highly unclear. Explain, in everyday English what you mean by these terms from a 2,500 year old culture and how they are relevant to us today please.

That is a shockingly poor comment from a 'moral philosopher' and I find it highly doubtful that any university would offer such a program and not read Aristotle.

I explained the terms in the post above.

They are relevant in the sense that they are key ideas in an alternative political tradition, one often identified by inclusion of 'postive freedom' (though in this tradition that's a meaningless term) and higher levels of democracy.

That is a shockingly poor comment from a 'moral philosopher' and I find it highly doubtful that any university would offer such a program and not read Aristotle.

I explained the terms in the post above.

They are relevant in the sense that they are key ideas in an alternative political tradition, one often identified by inclusion of 'postive freedom' (though in this tradition that's a meaningless term) and higher levels of democracy.

You are assuming that there is a set interpretation of the ancient Greek trerms in modern thought. There is not. there are thousands of papers discussing the meaning of these terms and there is no clear agreement on what they mean. Hence the request for you to explain, rather than simply criticise you for not having a clue what you are talking about.

Can you explain, in English what you mean by these terms? If not, you are just hiding behiund obscurantist jargon use, and do not have a clue yourself what you mean by them.

Edit: I have just read through your reply above. I disagree with your definition of telos. It is to me the final end, the final cause, in Aristotelean thought. However this could just be a difference in interpretation as it makes little difference to your argument.

You are assuming that there is a set interpretation of the ancient Greek trerms in modern thought. There is not. there are thousands of papers discussing the meaning of these terms and there is no clear agreement on what they mean. Hence the request for you to explain, rather than simply criticise you for not having a clue what you are talking about.

Can you explain, in English what you mean by these terms? If not, you are just hiding behiund obscurantist jargon use, and do not have a clue yourself what you mean by them.

Edit: I have just read through your reply above. I disagree with your definition of telos. It is to me the final end, the final cause, in Aristotelean thought. However this could just be a difference in interpretation as it makes little difference to your argument.

He's got the general gist of it, although he's conflating two different, albeit related, terms.

Allow me to briefly explain what telos means first. Telos is, as you said, the final end to which a thing progresses. The end for most things is to participate in the appropriate formal cause, and do it well.

As an example, consider a horse. When we judge whether or not a horse is "good" or not, what we are considering is the more or less the degree to which a particular horse participates in the form (Aristotelian, not Platonic sense) of a horse. A horse that eats hay and runs around would be considered a better horse than a horse that eats rocks and stands still, or perhaps better put, the latter would be considered a defective horse because it is not acheiving what its horseness draws it toward. The degree to which a horse does the things a horse should be doing is the degree to which that horse is a "good" horse.

It should be noted that "good" and "should be doing" are deliberately vague, because different horses have different "should be doing"'s, so to speak. Arabians are usually trained in dressage, which requires precise and slow movements. So a "good" Arabian in this case would be one that does precise and slow movements well. A "good" Quarter Horse, by contrast, is one that does well what Quarter Horses are designed for, which is quick burst of acceleration (hence the name quarter horse, for the fact that they were originally bred to run the quarter mile), which differs from a "good" Arabian, or a "good" thoroughbred (long-distance running). In each case, though, we would still say that those horses are good horses, because they are each participating in the formal elements of what constitutes a horse (part of which is the ability to run), and doing it well.

Now, you might ask what this has to do with people. People also have telos, and like a horse, that telos is to do participate well in those things that make a person a person. In this case, however, Aristotle argued that the natural end of any person is happiness, or better translated, flourishing. If a person does what he is supposed to do, and does it well, he should barring any extreme accidents and deprivations become a flourishing and happy individual. This is why I say that he was conflating the terms; while the telos of man is flourishing, other things have a different telos. Specifically, Aristotle thought that the things man needed to develop and develop well were a sense of reason, practical wisdom, and virtuous habits.

As a side note, I'd have to say that this is one of the most substantive threads I've ever seen on NS.

He's got the general gist of it, although he's conflating two different, albeit related, terms.
-snip-

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't mean to suggest only people had a telos, but I suppose I was very clear, I'm in a week-long cram session and my head's not in great shape.

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't mean to suggest only people had a telos, but I suppose I was very clear, I'm in a week-long cram session and my head's not in great shape.

Been there, done that, can definately sympathize. Don't worry about it, and good luck with the finals.;)


Nobody believes in autonomous atomized individuals! It's a straw man, a parody of what I'm actually saying.

Here's my attempt at clarification. Imagine a collection of soccer balls. Now, each ball is made of atoms and there is nothing more to the ball than the atoms that compose it and the interactions between them. The atoms in this case are like individuals but note that they don't fly along completely on their own like helium atoms in a gas, this would be like the individualist you are parodying, they interact together.

Now, it is sometimes useful to consider a soccer ball as a single object rather than a collection of atoms. If, say, you wanted to calculate it's trajectory it would be hopeless to use elementary particle theory. So, for brevity and convenience, we introduce the idea of a "soccer ball". This works because the atoms move together, they have a stable unity of form. A soccer ball is in this way like a club, a family or a business.

Now we imagine that someone comes along and gives a name to the collection of soccer balls, say he calls it a "herd". Then he kicks the balls over the other side of the park and says "I kicked the herd over there". We might grant him that what he said made some sort of sense but we'd be a bit uncomfortable talking about this "herd". How much sillier would it be if he only kicked half the balls away and then asked "where is the herd?" Clearly we have been led into talking nonsense by creating this artificial and arbitrary concept. The "herd" of soccer balls has no unity of form and so it isn't helpful to use it as a concept, especially when discussing cause and effect.

The concept of "herd" is like the concept of "society". Because it is an arbirtrary artificial notion it leads us into muddled thinking.

I hope this is helpful, I didn't have time to think of a better analogy.


I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but I'm not sure why you are more inclined to compare society to the "herd" of soccer balls and not the ball itself. You could just as easily say that people function best when they are part of a cohesive society that helps shape them into fully-functioning individuals. In point of fact, this is precisely what Mallberta is saying when he references Aristotle, as Aristotle's first sentence in The Politics is "Man is by nature a political animal."

Moreover, I can't think of any social theorist who would argue that the opposite is or ever has been true. Locke IIRC posited his state of nature as a theoretical construction as did (definately sure) Rousseau. Moreover, the more liberal construction of society is not in any way opposed to Locke's Social Contract, as Locke is quite clear that society can be shaped in many different ways and still function effectively so long as society's aims do not differ markedly from the aims of the people within that state. As for Rousseau, the liberal view of society is about the only possible way to view his view of the perfect Republic with its goal of the universal Sovereign. Others share similar conceptions: Montesquieu, Aquinas, Marcillius de Padua, Rawls, etc. all would have agreed that there is nothing inherently contradictory about a state that uses state power to provide for the welfare of society, even supposing that the individual is sovereign.

If you have entered into a societal compact, it is understood that in exchange for the benefits derived from society, you must in trade give up the full, complete, and unfettered right to do whatever the hell you want with your property and allow the state some power of regulation. It is also more or less impossible to avoid being part of the state, and furthermore you would not want to: by avoiding becoming part of the state, you are also avoiding the protection of property that the state offers, and I guarantee that no matter how many guns you have, you will never be able to protect your property absolutely in an anarchical situation. So on the whole, I see your argument as being based on a faulty premise: absolute property rights do not exist, cannot exist in order for a society to function, and moreover you wouldn't want it even if it did exist.