NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I feel that it's important that we seek to understand what the most basic, most minimal level of an entity can comprise a state. Specifically, how many people have to be involved in a collective grouping for even the most basic status of the state to be possible (and remove the individuals from a state of anarchy). This would be analytically useful for further debate here on NSG, and thus I am creating a poll.

I would argue that the minimum quantity of people required for a state to be formed is three.

To claim that only one person can be the entirety of a state is ludicrous (King Louis XIV, here's lookin' at you. I'm sorry that you can't respond to the argument, given you've been dead for hundreds of years, but contrary to your claims, you were not the entirety of the French state. Rather, the state is a creation of the social contract, and without the tacit consent of the governed, and the administration of your ministers, you could not have ruled a kingdom such as you did). Rather, I would contend that it must be more than one person.

I would argue that merely having two people being sufficient for the presence of a state is also inadequate. When it is merely two people, then it is just a self-enforcing contract. The individuals have not left a state of anarchy, merely given mile structure which is only supported by self-help to the state of anarchy.

Rather, I would argue that the minimum number of people required to form a state is three. Once there are three people, any contract between two of them is no longer self-help, but, rather, can receive enforcement from an impartial third party.

More than three being involved does not change the nature of the beast, and it will remain a state all the way up and beyond billions of participating individuals (although it will get far more inefficient and clunky).

So, I feel that it's important that we seek to understand what the most basic, most minimal level of an entity can comprise a state. Specifically, how many people have to be involved in a collective grouping for even the most basic status of the state to be possible (and remove the individuals from a state of anarchy). This would be analytically useful for further debate here on NSG, and thus I am creating a poll.

<snipped for brevity>

Do all three persons need to be party to the social contract to form a state?

The state is, at it's most basic level, a monopoly of organised violence. There simply needs to be a means of suppression and control, and a state is born. Numbers are largely irrelevant, though it would be rather odd to have a state of 3, it's technically possible, one would suppose, depending simply on the means of oppression in the possession of one party.

Its hard to imagine two people agreeing to the legitimacy of a third's monopoly on violence. Seemingly, it would appear to them, that they must have as much as a right to be violent as him.

I would put it forward that the state must include more people than it is possible for a single person to know. So, the minimum would be about 50...

You only need 2 people to form a state. One person has to be a monopolist on all force, keeping the other person from using force as he wishes. Of course, the example is clearer if you have three people, A, B, and S, where S is the sovereign. S determines how force will be applied amongst his subjects, if A will have to give tribute to B or likewise, or if A can retaliate against B, etc. It basically strips man of one of the most vital parts of being a moral agent, the right to self-defense, because this defense is completely at the mercy of every S in the world.

How many people lived in sealand?

the number of people is irrelevant. territory and recognition make a state.

It depends on how much power you have. If you can stand up against the US army and intelligence service, I doubt people will disagree with you if you claim to be a state.
And recognition is all that matters, really.

Honestly? Zero. States don't depend on a population, but on other nations recognizing it.

..that and Texas has no people, only monkeys. *hides* (apologizes to any NSers from Texas)

Honestly? Zero. States don't depend on a population, but on other nations recognizing it.

..that and Texas has no people, only monkeys. *hides* (apologizes to any NSers from Texas)

Don't worry about it too much. This monkey is far more intelligent and competent than most humans anyway.

Don't worry about it too much. This monkey is far more intelligent and competent than most humans anyway.

Silly Texan, we're all monkeys!

DANCE MONKEY, DANCE! (http://iacs5.ucsd.edu/~pbang/dance_monkeys.htm) <-click

In order for it to be a state, you need enough people to warrant an organizing body or government, as well as enough people and cohesive territory to be recognized internationally. You need a lot more than a roomful of people to be a 'state'.

How many people lived in sealand?

I thought it was for sale now.

Its hard to imagine two people agreeing to the legitimacy of a third's monopoly on violence. Seemingly, it would appear to them, that they must have as much as a right to be violent as him.

I would put it forward that the state must include more people than it is possible for a single person to know. So, the minimum would be about 50...

It's not about legitimacy. Were the Bolsheviks the legitiate rulers of Russia in 1918? No, the SRs were. But it doesn't mean they didn't create a new Russian state. How? The Red Army. A monopoly of violence.

I would say that a state requires a population around 30 or so people before it can be considered as such.

A state requires:

A system of governance in order to direct and facilitate co-operation between citizens of the state, through the use of passing down legislation.

A system of justice, in order to decide upon and punish citizens that violate legislation passed down from the system of governance, designed to protect the citizenry and state.

A citizenry that is in favour of the establishment of the state, and are comfortable to submit to the laws of the country set down by the system of governance, and are liable to be punished by the system of justice for violating such laws.

A military for the purposes of the self-defense of the citizens of the state.

Territory that is recognised by surrounding states, and is defended by said military.

Economic and Agricultural systems that ensure the basic self-sufficiency of the state without being forced to resort to dependancy on other states.

...
I would argue that the minimum quantity of people required for a state to be formed is three.
...
More than three being involved does not change the nature of the beast, and it will remain a state all the way up and beyond billions of participating individuals (although it will get far more inefficient and clunky).

I'd say that the more common forms of a State (in the strict hegelian meaning, with standing organisations; hence, comprising anything from dictatorship, to monarchy, feudal aristocracy, republic, democracy) have sense only when the community is in the order of hundreds of people. On lower numbers, anarchy and direct small-size democracy (like a soviet) are more efficient ways to get the things done.

Interesting reasoning, though. But I wouldn't stretch the definition of "State" like you did.

I hearby declare the People's Soviet Republic of My Bedroom!

*immediately overthrown by rats and roaches, outraged at being disenfranchised*

I hearby declare the People's Soviet Republic of My Bedroom!

*immediately overthrown by rats and roaches, outraged at being disenfranchised*

Bah, the rest of us never recognised you as a state.

Now the cockroaches we might. Excellent for harvesting uranium oxide you know...

Do all three persons need to be party to the social contract to form a state?

I'd say yes, they all need to be party.

Its hard to imagine two people agreeing to the legitimacy of a third's monopoly on violence. Seemingly, it would appear to them, that they must have as much as a right to be violent as him.

I would put it forward that the state must include more people than it is possible for a single person to know. So, the minimum would be about 50...

Why is that so hard to believe? At least 40 out of every 50 individuals accept the monopoly on violence by every 1 out of 50 individuals.

Anyway, numbers are irrelevant. All it takes is for just 1 person out of a group to have the monopoly on the use of force to be considered a state.

Why is that so hard to believe? At least 40 out of every 50 individuals accept the monopoly on violence by every 1 out of 50 individuals.

Anyway, numbers are irrelevant. All it takes is for just 1 person out of a group to have the monopoly on the use of force to be considered a state.

In modern times, especially in modern countries, it is about the people having faith in the state. If they believe that the state does not exist and they don't care about anything that is done with the state then it ceases to be.

Legitmacy is the crucial factor. The so called 'monopoly on force' nowadays is not true when you consider that most of them allow for the right for self defence.

2.

One to work, one to steal from him.

2.

One to work, one to steal from him.

That sounds more like a fuedal state to me.

That sounds more like a fuedal state to me.

Feudalism isn't a state, because it has polycentric law. (City law, ecclesiastic law, temporal law, merchant law, etc. etc.) Hence, no one would have a monopoly over law. You only saw states in the 1500s or so developing, with centralization. Also, the feudal lord wasn't stealing from the serf, because they would have clear contracts with one another.

Feudalism isn't a state, because it has polycentric law. (City law, ecclesiastic law, temporal law, merchant law, etc. etc.) Hence, no one would have a monopoly over law.

Divine right of kings? Absolute monarchy? Aristocracy rule (as the more common devolved version)?

Each of those fiefdoms could quite easily have been a city-state or empires, like the romans and egyptians.

You only saw states in the 1500s or so developing,

Modern state.

with centralization. Also, the feudal lord wasn't stealing from the serf

"You make and grow things for me in return for you staying here. Just because you cannot travel very far (or perhaps this is a place with no movement outside of a village) it doesn't mean you and your family are in slavery. Oh, I also get to treat you however I want."

because they would have clear contracts with one another.

Out of curiousity do you support the idea of the social contract?

Feudalism isn't a state, because it has polycentric law. (City law, ecclesiastic law, temporal law, merchant law, etc. etc.) Hence, no one would have a monopoly over law. You only saw states in the 1500s or so developing, with centralization. Also, the feudal lord wasn't stealing from the serf, because they would have clear contracts with one another.

Of course a state exists, it is just smaller then the modern state. The feudal lord had the monopoly on the use of force within the lands he owned. The lord's will was law to anyone who lived on his rather extensive territories.

Of course a state exists, it is just smaller then the modern state. The feudal lord had the monopoly on the use of force within the lands he owned. The lord's will was law to anyone who lived on his rather extensive territories.

You said it much better than I did.

The standard feudal lord typically relied much more on the monopoly of force than the rationality argument (which is used in the modern state).

You said it much better than I did.

The standard feudal lord typically relied much more on the monopoly of force than the rationality argument (which is used in the modern state).

What I like most of all about Greill's POV is that not long ago he posted a thread "refuting" Social Contract theory and then basically used it to defend the corrupt feudal landlord's right all but own people.

Generally speaking, a state is a geographical area which is internationally recognised as being so, and a nation is a collective of people who share a common relation to each other.

Thus a coherent answer to the poll question is that a state requires 0 persons.

Obviously such a state would be rather fruitless to govern, but that's the definintion :rolleyes:

Of course a state exists, it is just smaller then the modern state. The feudal lord had the monopoly on the use of force within the lands he owned. The lord's will was law to anyone who lived on his rather extensive territories.

No, he didn't. There was polycentric law on the feudal manor, and the feudal lord couldn't violate the rights of his serfs, unlike our modern legislatures.

Divine right of kings? Absolute monarchy? Aristocracy rule (as the more common devolved version)?

That only came about with absolutism, in the 1500s.

Each of those fiefdoms could quite easily have been a city-state or empires, like the romans and egyptians.

But they weren't. They had polycentric law, which would make a monopoly on law a logical contradiction.

Modern state.

But a state has to have a monopoly on law. The feudal lord didn't have this.

"You make and grow things for me in return for you staying here. Just because you cannot travel very far (or perhaps this is a place with no movement outside of a village) it doesn't mean you and your family are in slavery. Oh, I also get to treat you however I want."

Ugh, no. In Germany, serfs were able to go from manor to manor to choose where they would live, and they would give up part of their produce to the lord in exchange for protection. (They had to give up less of their income, 33%, than we do now, often 50%.)

Out of curiousity do you support the idea of the social contract?

No, because social contract is a form of moral authoritarianism and is terribly murky, especially with our out of control legislatures, whereas landlords and kings had to deal with rights that were antecedent to their authority.

No, he didn't. There was polycentric law on the feudal manor, and the feudal lord couldn't violate the rights of his serfs, unlike our modern legislatures.

Polycentric law doesn't mean jack. Legal codes have nothing to do with the definition of the state, which is an entity with the monopoly on the use of force within a given domain. No matter the legal code of the day, the landowner had (and indeed still has) a de facto monopoly on the use of force. A serf had only 2 choices in his life: work for his landlord and have no freedom, or he can simply be put to the sword. If that's not a state, I don't know what is.

That only came about with absolutism, in the 1500s.

Divine right of kings came a lot earlier then the 1500s. The only thing that restricted a medieval king's power was not the law but rather his limited means of communication.

But they weren't. They had polycentric law, which would make a monopoly on law a logical contradiction.

Law =/= use of force

But a state has to have a monopoly on law. The feudal lord didn't have this.

No it doesn't. All it needs is a sufficiently large cudgel.

Ugh, no. In Germany, serfs were able to go from manor to manor to choose where they would live, and they would give up part of their produce to the lord in exchange for protection. (They had to give up less of their income, 33%, than we do now, often 50%.)

Uh, no. A serf by defintion was bound to the land they were born on. They were born in one manor and most likely died in the same one.

No, because social contract is a form of moral authoritarianism and is terribly murky, especially with our out of control legislatures, whereas landlords and kings had to deal with rights that were antecedent to their authority.

Tell me, would you rather live in a system where the limits of the sovereign's authority were determined solely by his capricious whims, or a system where the authority of the sovereign is limited by social contract?

And here is the definition of serfdom:

Serfdom is the socio-economic status of peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates to Manorialism. It is a condition of bondage or modified slavery seen primarily during the Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom is the enforced labour of serfs, on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.

Back at elementary school we were taught that four criteria had to be met in order to be a state: territory, sovereignty, population, and government. Miss any of those, and you are no state.

I don't think recognition is vital to being a state. The people who hold sovereignty over the territory, if they can form a government, is a state, even if the United States of America or China or Burkina Faso does not recognize that particular state.

As for the question... it's not 0. 'Cause you won't have a population. Not 1, because you are governing what/whom? I'd say 2, though that is far-fetched. But why not? If they have a territory under their sovereignty, and had set up a working government, it's a state.

Polycentric law doesn't mean jack. Legal codes have nothing to do with the definition of the state, which is an entity with the monopoly on the use of force within a given domain. No matter the legal code of the day, the landowner had (and indeed still has) a de facto monopoly on the use of force. A serf had only 2 choices in his life: work for his landlord and have no freedom, or he can simply be put to the sword. If that's not a state, I don't know what is.

Good God, that's not what happened in feudalism, at least not until the state began to centralize. I can recall an instance in medieval France where two lords were forced to pay reparations for having murdered three artisans, and paid their families rent for having deprived them of the breadwinners. There were plenty of others. This insistence that the seigneur was an all-powerful dictator is a modern concept with no validity in actual history.

Divine right of kings came a lot earlier then the 1500s. The only thing that restricted a medieval king's power was not the law but rather his limited means of communication.

But it was effectively impotent, and he had to deal with the customs of his lands, which made him quite impotent too (hence why the King of France had so much trouble.)

Law =/= use of force

It's very closely related, and, seeing as how the above lords and others were punished for the murder of serfs, it is fairly obvious that they did not have a monopoly on force- they could not be punished otherwise.

No it doesn't. All it needs is a sufficiently large cudgel.

By this definition, the mafia is a state.

pquote]Uh, no. A serf by defintion was bound to the land they were born on. They were born in one manor and most likely died in the same one.[/quote]

Factually inaccurate. This preconception comes from the Roman latifundia where the colonus were bound to the land, but this was wiped away by Germanic common law- the Carolingian law makes absolutely no reference to serfs being tied to land. Yes, they would lose tenure if they left the land untended for a year and a day, but this is hardly being prevented from leaving their land.

Tell me, would you rather live in a system where the limits of the sovereign's authority were determined solely by his capricious whims, or a system where the authority of the sovereign is limited by social contract?

Given the choice between living in a situation where the lord is bound by custom and is upholding a contract that I made with him (free people DID enter into such contracts with lords), or living in a psychotic, warmongering, regulatory democracy, I would choose the former. At least I would have some value.

Good God, that's not what happened in feudalism, at least not until the state began to centralize. I can recall an instance in medieval France where two lords were forced to pay reparations for having murdered three artisans, and paid their families rent for having deprived them of the breadwinners. There were plenty of others. This insistence that the seigneur was an all-powerful dictator is a modern concept with no validity in actual history.

Artisan =/= serf. An artisan falls under the category of freeman which is by definition someone who pays tribute to a landlord in order to do business. A serf was a semi-slave who was born into a contract where they were forced to give up the value of their labour in exchange for the privilege of living another day.

But it was effectively impotent, and he had to deal with the customs of his lands, which made him quite impotent too (hence why the King of France had so much trouble.)

The King's limitation are the de facto limitations of the number of soldiers he had to enforce his will, not a de jure limitation on his authority. Some, like William of Normandy or Edward I of England were quite adept at ruling their nobles with an iron fist.

It's very closely related, and, seeing as how the above lords and others were punished for the murder of serfs, it is fairly obvious that they did not have a monopoly on force- they could not be punished otherwise.

Once again, that wasn't a serf being murdered, it was a freeman. A lord had every right to kill his serfs if they displeased him, they were little more than chattel, a means to an economic end.

By this definition, the mafia is a state.

Indeed it is.

Factually inaccurate. This preconception comes from the Roman latifundia where the colonus were bound to the land, but this was wiped away by Germanic common law- the Carolingian law makes absolutely no reference to serfs being tied to land. Yes, they would lose tenure if they left the land untended for a year and a day, but this is hardly being prevented from leaving their land.

Once again, this is referring to freemen who gave tribute to the landlord he rented land from, not a bonded serf.

Given the choice between living in a situation where the lord is bound by custom and is upholding a contract that I made with him (free people DID enter into such contracts with lords), or living in a psychotic, warmongering, regulatory democracy, I would choose the former. At least I would have some value.

The only problem is, you never made the contract. Your great-great-great grandfather did under basically at knife point, and in doing so bound you to service to the manor that you serve. Your voice is limited by what your lord will let you get away with saying, and should you protest your arrangement, he'll gladly release you into the next world.

Artisan =/= serf. An artisan falls under the category of freeman which is by definition someone who pays tribute to a landlord in order to do business. A serf was a semi-slave who was born into a contract where they were forced to give up the value of their labour in exchange for the privilege of living another day.

No, there were serfs who were quite wealthier than freemen, and in this case, these artisans were serfs, as indicated quite clearly by the records. This was also the case for seigneurial sergeants, who were quite wealthy but still serfs. In fact, serfs were not limited to only agricultural work- many had a variety of skills.

The King's limitation are the de facto limitations of the number of soldiers he had to enforce his will, not a de jure limitation on his authority. Some, like William of Normandy or Edward I of England were quite adept at ruling their nobles with an iron fist.

William of Normandy treaded on quite a few toes, however, and encountered a great deal of resistance to his rule, because the king was supposed to be "first among equals", not a super-being.

Once again, that wasn't a serf being murdered, it was a freeman. A lord had every right to kill his serfs if they displeased him, they were little more than chattel, a means to an economic end.

Again, they were quite explicitly serfs. The records indicate it quite emphatically.

Indeed it is.

OK, so would that mean that some gangbangers who rob a little old lady were, in that instant, a state? Doesn't that strike you as a terribly broad definition that becomes simply synonymous with criminal activity, as opposed to an institution (which a state is)?

Once again, this is referring to freemen who gave tribute to the landlord he rented land from, not a bonded serf.

No. The serfs were not bonded to the land, at least early on, and there is NO indication of such bondage to the land in Carolingian law. This is an explicitly Roman concept that was wiped away by the Germanic invasions. Later on, with the consolidation of royal power, from somewhat before the 1500s onwards, this did become the case, but beforehand it was not. Besides, how the heck would a patchwork of petty fiefdoms enforce such a rule anyway? The best they could do was A.) Punish the serf for leaving his fields unimproved for a year and a day, and B.) Having a reciprocal agreement with other landlords that they would not permit each others' serfs to enter each other's lands.

The only problem is, you never made the contract. Your great-great-great grandfather did under basically at knife point, and in doing so bound you to service to the manor that you serve. Your voice is limited by what your lord will let you get away with saying, and should you protest your arrangement, he'll gladly release you into the next world.

No. No. No. No. No. There were a great many freemen who joined under noble lords in serfdom, and a great number of serfs could trace back their ancestry to free men who did the same. The ceremony to convert slaves into serfs explicitly had the master free his slave, and then the slave would swear their fealty to the lord. There is a very obvious distinction between the serf and slave, which, while still coercive, does give a serf a very different status. I am free to leave the manor whenever I wish (at least pre-1500s). But I probably won't, because that means I'll A.) Lose my tenure, and B.) Lose whatever immoveables I have there. But I can still do it. Also, there were occasions when the lords threatened to kill their serfs; one lord had a tantrum with his serfs where he threatened to burn their houses and despoil their fields and basically kill them. But nothing came of it, because he knew he was not in his rights to do such a thing, and he had to give in to the serfs' requests. Such incidents that demonstrated the lack of absolute power of seigneurs were quite common, which is completely contrary to the modern notion that the lord was a godhead of sorts.

No, there were serfs who were quite wealthier than freemen, and in this case, these artisans were serfs, as indicated quite clearly by the records. This was also the case for seigneurial sergeants, who were quite wealthy but still serfs. In fact, serfs were not limited to only agricultural work- many had a variety of skills.

This is straight from the german Charter of Barons (c 1740). "Nichts gehoret euch zu, die Seele gehoret Gott, eure Leiber, Guter und alles was ihr habt, ist mein (2, S.109)." Translation:"Nothing belongs to you, the soul belongs to the God, but all that you have, your bodies, property, is mine".

"Der Bauer muss sein Bett nicht vor Abend zurecht machen, weil er am Tage nicht wissen kann, ob er noch die nachste Nacht in demselben schlaft "(1, S.17)." Translation: "The peasant should not lay the bed till the evening as he cannot know in the afternoon, whether he sleeps the next night in the same bed "

All evidence shows that this form of serfdom was the de facto order for European society in the middle ages.

William of Normandy treaded on quite a few toes, however, and encountered a great deal of resistance to his rule, because the king was supposed to be "first among equals", not a super-being.

The point again is that law does not enter into the formulation of the state.

Again, they were quite explicitly serfs. The records indicate it quite emphatically.

No, they were peasants. Peasants =/= serf. While most middle ages peasants were serfs, some were freemen, who were under the protection of the King of whatever nation they lived in. A lord could not effectively oppress freemen because they were the domain of the sovereign, who drew most of his soldiers and retainers from the ranks of the freemen.

OK, so would that mean that some gangbangers who rob a little old lady were, in that instant, a state? Doesn't that strike you as a terribly broad definition that becomes simply synonymous with criminal activity, as opposed to an institution (which a state is)?

A group of gangbangers is not an institution unless they tend towards the same kind of trafficking that the Mafia does. A lot of drug gangs are highly centralized institutions that have fixed territories and the de facto monopoly on force within those domains.

No. The serfs were not bonded to the land, at least early on, and there is NO indication of such bondage to the land in Carolingian law. This is an explicitly Roman concept that was wiped away by the Germanic invasions. Later on, with the consolidation of royal power, from somewhat before the 1500s onwards, this did become the case, but beforehand it was not. Besides, how the heck would a patchwork of petty fiefdoms enforce such a rule anyway? The best they could do was A.) Punish the serf for leaving his fields unimproved for a year and a day, and B.) Having a reciprocal agreement with other landlords that they would not permit each others' serfs to enter each other's lands.

No, it was not wiped away. In western europe, the Balkans and Russia, the coloni precendent continued to define serfdom until its eventual abolition.

No. No. No. No. No. There were a great many freemen who joined under noble lords in serfdom, and a great number of serfs could trace back their ancestry to free men who did the same. The ceremony to convert slaves into serfs explicitly had the master free his slave, and then the slave would swear their fealty to the lord. There is a very obvious distinction between the serf and slave, which, while still coercive, does give a serf a very different status. I am free to leave the manor whenever I wish (at least pre-1500s). But I probably won't, because that means I'll A.) Lose my tenure, and B.) Lose whatever immoveables I have there. But I can still do it. Also, there were occasions when the lords threatened to kill their serfs; one lord had a tantrum with his serfs where he threatened to burn their houses and despoil their fields and basically kill them. But nothing came of it, because he knew he was not in his rights to do such a thing, and he had to give in to the serfs' requests. Such incidents that demonstrated the lack of absolute power of seigneurs were quite common, which is completely contrary to the modern notion that the lord was a godhead of sorts.

A serf would have to earn enough money to buy his freedom from his lord, which was nigh impossible considering the economic arrangement. More often than not, a serf was only freed because of exemplary military service. Many a freeman would also be forced into serfdom by economic hardship or military invasions.