NationStates Jolt Archive

Definition of the phrase "to like": "to find enjoyable or agreeable."

This is not my question: Do you believe the State is necessary?

This, also, is not my question: Do you like your particular government?

My question, again, is this: do you like the State?

That is, do you find the idea of having a government enjoyable or agreeable? If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why.

Don't ask me why I'm asking. Just answer the question, please.

Don't ask me why I'm asking.
Why? Erm, why not? Both?

I quite like having a government, bitch all I do about it but I do like some stability in my life :)

I quite like having a government, bitch all I do about it but I do like some stability in my life :)

Ditto.

Why yes, I find The State hilarious.

I am unaware of this work. Is it a movie or a book?

EDIT: Also, there are four "no" votes, (including mine), but nobody who voted for that option has explained why s/he doesn't like the State. Please explain.


I will explain myself later.

Yes. I like stability.

By the State, I assume you mean the Ruling Class, correct? They are after all the same thing.

all states are echos of rome... echos that will be shattered with my return... which will be soon...

relatively soon... well the rapture at least, and the tribulations and stuff... pretty soon anyway

By the State, I assume you mean the Ruling Class, correct? They are after all the same thing.
woooo i liked "the ruling class"... peter o'toole thought he was me... and he look good doing it

all states are echos of rome... echos that will be shattered with my return... which will be soon...

relatively soon... well the rapture at least, and the tribulations and stuff... pretty soon anyway

Seriously, your post makes me wanna have a hot dog with lots of ketchup and mustard.

By the State, I assume you mean the Ruling Class, correct? They are after all the same thing.
Basically. What I take the State to mean is the "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a large geographic area," which is pretty much the common sense definition.

Ruling class? Sure. (I believe that the State exists primarily to defend the wealth and privilege of the rich and powerful, no matter how much unspeakable brutality it causes. Which is why I don't like it.)

Furthermore, I believe that we will not undergo a voluntary transformation to anarchy, not because it's "utopian" or "impractical," but because the average person doesn't want anarchy, because average people likethe State.

Quick note: If you are Marxist-Leninist, the purpose of this thread is not to debate the relative merits of Marxism and anarchism.

So to follow up, if you don't like the Ruling Class/State, why specifically?

Seriously, your post makes me wanna have a hot dog with lots of ketchup and mustard. i've eaten 4 hotdogs today... i dare not eat more or satan with possess my bowels the 2 am burrito probably isn't going to help matters either

Seriously, your post makes me wanna have a hot dog with lots of ketchup and mustard.

A hot dog with ketchup alone is bad enough, but one with ketchup and mustard? The ketchup takes the mustard, which tastes great on its own, and turns it into an orange abomination...

...And I think my taste buds just died thinking about it. :p

Hell no.

I suppose I do, considering that the state is truly a collection of people employed or allowed to govern by the general populace:

After all, I keep sending new employees when vacancies are created.
I keep paying them to work/govern.
They seem do to what they are employed to do..sometimes (it's so difficult to find good employees these days)

While I might complain about their performance, and I might be disturbed at their defiance or occasional delusions of grandeur, I still pay them.

Maybe I am too easy going of an employer, eh?

As long as we are satisfied..we will pay and abide our employees.

A hot dog with ketchup alone is bad enough, but one with ketchup and mustard? The ketchup takes the mustard, which tastes great on its own, and turns it into an orange abomination...

...And I think my taste buds just died thinking about it. :p you can put ketchup on hotdogs in heaven if you want tobut you may get punched in the face if you do it in front of a new yorker

you can put ketchup on hotdogs in heaven if you want tobut you may get punched in the face if you do it in front of a new yorker

Or a Chicagoan... And I tend to share the sentiment, as I grew up with Chicago hot dogs.

Oh, Stubby... Where are you now?

I don't like stupidity. I think hypocrisy is stupid. The State is hypocritical. Therefore I don't like the State.

I voted no, because simply, I feel that the elected government no longer represents me nor gives me a chance to vote for someone who I feel does represent me. Just my 2 cents worth.:headbang:

i've eaten 4 hotdogs today... i dare not eat more or satan with possess my bowels the 2 am burrito probably isn't going to help matters either

ROFL!

Basically. What I take the State to mean is the "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a large geographic area," which is pretty much the common sense definition.

Ruling class? Sure. (I believe that the State exists primarily to defend the wealth and privilege of the rich and powerful, no matter how much unspeakable brutality it causes. Which is why I don't like it.)

Furthermore, I believe that we will not undergo a voluntary transformation to anarchy, not because it's "utopian" or "impractical," but because the average person doesn't want anarchy, because average people likethe State.

Quick note: If you are Marxist-Leninist, the purpose of this thread is not to debate the relative merits of Marxism and anarchism.

So to follow up, if you don't like the Ruling Class/State, why specifically?
I do not like the current ruling class because the current ruling class is a tiny minority and as such does not represent the interests of the vast working majority.

The State is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, and an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class (a "special coercive force" that rules through violence). The State of the bourgeoisie will disappear, but only through a revolution that will take the people to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat (the working class) will become then the ruling class,"capable of crushing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie, and of organizing all the working and exploited people for the new economic system. The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population -the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians- in the work of organizing a socialist economy.

The State itself cannot be taken out of the context of class relations because the State is a product of class relations, because both class have diametrically opposed interests, (the propertied and exploited) will contest each other until one or the other becomes the ruling class.

Definition of the phrase "to like": "to find enjoyable or agreeable."

This is not my question: Do you believe the State is necessary?

This, also, is not my question: Do you like your particular government?

My question, again, is this: do you like the State?

That is, do you find the idea of having a government enjoyable or agreeable? If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why.

Don't ask me why I'm asking. Just answer the question, please.

Which state? I like like the idea of a state, but not all states are equal. Some are incredibly incompotent, some are ruled by frighteningly delusional people, some are so corrupt it's almost amusing, some are very good at what they do. Also, there are so many different state models. There is abig difference between a practically non-existant state like Iraq to somewhere where the state is all pervasive, like North Korea.

This question is far to general to be meaningful, except to find out how many of are die-hard anarchists. Why not just ask that?

i belive it is up to the state to justify its existence by serving a useful purpose.

those who seem to think market forces even can, let alone are remotely likely to satisfy that same purpose, are deluding themselves.

there's just no guarantee of a state doing so either.

so what we really need to look at is the source of the real incentives that motivate either. and in both cases they come ultimately from ourselves.

it might even be more accurately understood, that the state, and economic intrests both, are a product, statistically and collectively, of the values, added togather, each of us, for the most part unthinkingly, actually lives by.

i don't trust 'the state'. i don't believe it is ever wise to do so. but i do trust market forces even less. and that based solely on observation as rigerously objective and self honest as i am able to make my observations to be.

what do i trust? the we live in a big and diverse univers, and all of human intrests are a very small influence in it after all.

but still a major, the major, influence on our own collective fate as a species.

so essentially 'the state' is something that CAN serve a useful purpose, and a purpose MADE neccessary BY the otherwise callus disreguard for real people, places and things, market forces alone repeatedly and consistently demonstrate.

people banding togather for mutual bennifit and assistence was the birth of the state. and still the pivotal justifictaion for its existence.

a state that bows totally to the most callus of economic intrests is indeed one humanity would be better off without.

and of course that's not the only excess the state in many forms is capable of. if human numbers were small enough, and certain factors of todays vested intrest picture had never developed, then indeed, were we few enough to live indipendently off the land, only banding togather when in need of doing so, to assist one another, then indeed the state would be utterly, well, if there were no demand for it, and under those conditions there wouldn't be, then it simply would not exist anyway.

if we want more freedoms, what we need is to stop, by our own values and the incentives created by those values, to create a market, for some means of diciplining ourselves when we ourselves fail or refuse to do so. and by diciplining ourselves, i mean diciplining ourselves to avoid, to ACTUALLY avoid cause harm and suffering, and the CONDITIONS that cause harm and suffering and the MOTIVATIONS that cause those conditions to be created.

so really when we talk about the state, we are talking about a symptom of the kind of existence, by how we live ourselves, we ourselves create.

its not something we can choose whether or not it is to exist nor to what degree, other then by the degree to which we are willing to, and actually do, regulate and dicipline our own lives as individuals.

i mean people can have revolutions and revolts and all that, and tear things up and tear things down, but 'the state' in a defacto sense will still be there, because it is in us, in every failure of ourselves to imperfectly restrain ourselves from carelessness and thoughtlessness about our environment and each other.

=^^=
.../\...

I don't like the State, but I believe Anarchy would be a lot worse than anything I currently have to put up with... probably... Some work better than others, and I find many of the Scandinavian countries pretty well-off. They seem to have a similar view-point on the world and politics that I vaguely agree with. :P

I think I hate it because it could be so much better than it is now.

an-archy, in any honest sense of the word, COULD NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST without the self dicipline that would make "the state" superfilous. any time you have any kind of a pecking order AT ALL, you have a form of hierarchy, and thus NOT "anarchy", in any true, honest and litteral sense.

and no, tearing crap up is not anarchy, tearing crap up is tearing crap up, and win, lose or draw, ends up with a big pile of torn up crap, which IS counterbennificial, but is NOT honestly "anarchy".

same goes for ANYONE intimidating ANYONE else, even unintentionally and without realizing it.

but some things worth having, do take coordinated group effort to exist, and that includes every bennifit we get and take for granted, from any and every kind of infrastructure.

but there ARE less 'virtical' forms of social coordination.

=^^=
.../\...

but there ARE less 'virtical' forms of social coordination.



But are they inherently any more beneficial than our current structures? Truly horizontal management by consenus is fraught with problems since, in effect, anyone can obstruct a project from proceeding if they feel it is not in their interest.

I know this libertarian stuff is popular here on NSG, but I'll stick with a state until someone can show me a working, proven and viable alternative.

Those libertarians who abstractly just say 'government is bad' or 'the state is bad' fail to understand why the State exists in the first place, that is because of class struggle.

I agree with Andaras, tis all about class struggle. Give me a prole to beat :D

</sarcasm>

Umm... WHICH ONE? Many states suck. Some are good.

Yep. They're pretty damn good.

I know this libertarian stuff is popular here on NSG, but I'll stick with a state until someone can show me a working, proven and viable alternative.

/\ This /\

By the State, I assume you mean the Ruling Class, correct? They are after all the same thing.

Fine "the dictatorship of the prolatwhatever". Da comrade?

Fine "the dictatorship of the prolatwhatever". Da comrade?

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Да, товарищ.

Governments are needed because people suck. But how can I possibly like the necessity of them? :(

Yes I like a government, because it provides me with services such as: a police force, fire department, postal serivice, OHIP etc.

The state protects my life, liberty, and property. The three fundamental rights.

Because of the state, I can rest comfortably and peacefully at night in my bed.

Truly horizontal management by consenus is fraught with problems since, in effect, anyone can obstruct a project from proceeding if they feel it is not in their interest.

Then it isn't very horizontal, is it?

Most modern anarchists support some variety of majority decisionmaking--but within the framework of decentralized institutions created through free association.

It is always instructive to ponder the history of pre-state europe, when the social order was based on free association.

The commonly used name is feudalism, and refers to the voluntary association of different members of the warrior class under the system of fiefdom and vassalage.

In the time-tested system of voluntary association, the men with the most might first monopolize the use of force through brutal repression in the aims of their personal interests, and then form voluntary bonds of consideration and obligation with similar men. Oftentimes these voluntary contracts are in the form of mutual aid against outside aggression, or for protection in return for payment.

History also shows us, from when this system was tried in the real world, that the monopoly of force that the well armed maintain is sometimes broken, with the result that the poorest and weakest are victimized by roving bands called "free companies."

One wonders why men were ever convinced of the false belief that this system was somehow against the interests of the majority, and conned into embracing the state, with its binding laws and collectivized monopoly of force.

It is always instructive to ponder the history of pre-state europe, when the social order was based on free association.

The commonly used name is feudalism, and refers to the voluntary association of different members of the warrior class under the system of fiefdom and vassalage.

In the time-tested system of voluntary association, the men with the most might first monopolize the use of force through brutal repression in the aims of their personal interests, and then form voluntary bonds of consideration and obligation with similar men. Oftentimes these voluntary contracts are in the form of mutual aid against outside aggression, or for protection in return for payment.

History also shows us, from when this system was tried in the real world, that the monopoly of force that the well armed maintain is sometimes broken, with the result that the poorest and weakest are victimized by roving bands called "free companies."

One wonders why men were ever convinced of the false belief that this system was somehow against the interests of the majority, and conned into embracing the state, with its binding laws and collectivized monopoly of force.

The state protects my life, liberty, and property. The three fundamental rights.

Because of the state, I can rest comfortably and peacefully at night in my bed.

Since when does the PRC protect "liberty"?

Then it isn't very horizontal, is it?

Most modern anarchists support some variety of majority decisionmaking--but within the framework of decentralized institutions created through free association.

A lot of communes are run on the idea of consensus, that unless everyone agrees a project won't proceed, the idea being that it shouldn't be forced upon anyone. In reality it means a long drawn out set of compromises to get anywhere. To impose something through the will of the majority is really still vertical (not necessarily top-down, however) in that the wishes still have to be imposed upon an unwilling minority who didn't go along with the idea.

I absolutely despise the notion of the state with every fiber of my being. In practice, I hate some states more than others; Liechtenstein, for instance, I do not mind all that much because of their lack of expropriation and the fact that their king is relatively strong compared to their parliament, which roughly approximates the idea of leadership in an extended family unit.

Though domestically it may not tyrannize as much as other states, I find the US Federal government the most vile of all. It is the premier imperialist, either causing most of the horrors of the world by its own volition or due to the consequences of its blunders, and the fact that it has managed to successfully transform itself into such a monster despite (probably because) of all the supposed restraints on its power is especially grim.

I don't like it, but its sadly neccessary.

It is always instructive to ponder the history of pre-state europe, when the social order was based on free association.

The commonly used name is feudalism

of course, the feudal system was a state system. but hey, who cares about shit like that, eh?

I dislike the state because I don't see how it's possible to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
Also, the state =!= a government.

To impose something through the will of the majority is really still vertical (not necessarily top-down, however)

Surely it is either both or neither?

in that the wishes still have to be imposed upon an unwilling minority who didn't go along with the idea.

Right, but in a democracy where we do not have consistent patterns of "winners" and "losers", this can be a purely procedural rule that doesn't involve power relations.

Since when does the PRC protect "liberty"?

I am here on a foreign residence permit, and you'd be surprised what we get away with.

:)

It may not protect other peoples' liberty, but it isn't my state anyway.

There is no "State" other than a "state of mind." All governments are invented and therefore illusionary. I personally neither like nor dislike the illusion, but I do take into account the attitudes towards it of others when determining a course of action.

Of course I like the state, anarchism just isn't my cup of tea as an alternative.

All governments are invented and therefore illusionary.

Like cars. Purest illusion.

Like cars. Purest illusion.

Ask any racoon by the side of the road.

Like cars. Purest illusion.

Ah, so if all inventions are illusionary then, since cars are an invention, they are also an illusion. Hmmm, I guess goverments must exist then? Nope, sorry, you have not refuted me. What was your point? Or would you like an argument that a car is an illusion? I could make one . . . ask any Platonist . . .

it really doesn't make kaka whether we like it or not, or even whether we think its neccessary or not, it, the state, is CREATED BY, our lack of self dicipline. WHEN we gain the ability to dicipline ourselves into not wanting to tell anyone else what to do, how to live, then and only then CAN "the state" go away. until we do, WE continue, BY OUR LACK OF IT, to CREATE it!

=^^=
.../\...

My question, again, is this: do you like the State?

That is, do you find the idea of having a government enjoyable or agreeable?

Are you aware that a government isn't essential for a State?

Anyway, staying outside of the possible nitpickings of political philosophy, yes, I find the State quite enjoyable. It is the State that provides, through everyone's contribution, to the welfare and well-being of every individual in the society.

The state is unlikable, untrustworthy, and at least borderline evil, at best.

It is also, unfortunately, necessary.

Do you like the State?Which State?

I like my State, but maybe not yours.