Talk:State - Revision history

DavidVeksler: Contributor de-identification

2026-07-23T07:05:56Z

Contributor de-identification

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:05, 23 July 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:

	==Distinction between public and private==		==Distinction between public and private==
	How do we distinguish between public and private sovereigns? E.g. if all the governments, national, state and local, were abolished, wouldn't you as private landowner be at that point a government over all who choose to enter your property? Maybe some ethical rules of proportionality would apply, e.g. you couldn't shoot someone for mere theft, and such behavior might result in ostracism or counterattack if the prevailing norms condemned such behavior. But you could expel someone from your land for whatever reasons you deemed appropriate. Those reasons could include non-payment of rent. Isn't a tax basically rent imposed by a sovereign? A sovereign is like a super-landlord, is he not? [[User:~~Nathan Larson~~\|~~Nathan Larson~~]] ([[User talk:~~Nathan Larson~~\|talk]]) 05:36, 17 July 2012 (MSD)		How do we distinguish between public and private sovereigns? E.g. if all the governments, national, state and local, were abolished, wouldn't you as private landowner be at that point a government over all who choose to enter your property? Maybe some ethical rules of proportionality would apply, e.g. you couldn't shoot someone for mere theft, and such behavior might result in ostracism or counterattack if the prevailing norms condemned such behavior. But you could expel someone from your land for whatever reasons you deemed appropriate. Those reasons could include non-payment of rent. Isn't a tax basically rent imposed by a sovereign? A sovereign is like a super-landlord, is he not? [[User:FormerContributor-78162cb3\|FormerContributor-78162cb3]] ([[User talk:FormerContributor-78162cb3\|talk]]) 05:36, 17 July 2012 (MSD)

FormerContributor-78162cb3 at 01:36, 17 July 2012

2012-07-17T01:36:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 17 July 2012
Line 30:		Line 30:
	More on this later. [[User:Pestergaines\|Pestergaines]] 17:51, 21 May 2012 (MSD)		More on this later. [[User:Pestergaines\|Pestergaines]] 17:51, 21 May 2012 (MSD)

	==References==		===References===
	{{Reflist}}		{{Reflist}}

			==Distinction between public and private==
			How do we distinguish between public and private sovereigns? E.g. if all the governments, national, state and local, were abolished, wouldn't you as private landowner be at that point a government over all who choose to enter your property? Maybe some ethical rules of proportionality would apply, e.g. you couldn't shoot someone for mere theft, and such behavior might result in ostracism or counterattack if the prevailing norms condemned such behavior. But you could expel someone from your land for whatever reasons you deemed appropriate. Those reasons could include non-payment of rent. Isn't a tax basically rent imposed by a sovereign? A sovereign is like a super-landlord, is he not? [[User:Nathan Larson\|Nathan Larson]] ([[User talk:Nathan Larson\|talk]]) 05:36, 17 July 2012 (MSD)

Pestergaines: Thoughts and notes...

2012-05-21T13:51:56Z

Thoughts and notes...

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 21 May 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	nice! i like this already <span style="font-size:smaller;">—''unsigned comment by'' [[User:190.212.56.112\|190.212.56.112]] ([[User talk:190.212.56.112\|talk]]) {{#if:190.212.56.112\|01:18, 24 November 2010}}.</span><!-- {{unsigned}}-->		nice! i like this already <span style="font-size:smaller;">—''unsigned comment by'' [[User:190.212.56.112\|190.212.56.112]] ([[User talk:190.212.56.112\|talk]]) {{#if:190.212.56.112\|01:18, 24 November 2010}}.</span><!-- {{unsigned}}-->

			==On the origin and rise of the state==
			A place to store thoughts on the origin of the state.

			Jared Diamond speaks about the how an elite can maintain popular support while maintaining a more comfortable lifestyle than commoners ([[Guns, Germs and Steel]], p.276-278):
			* Disarm the populace, and arm the elite.
			* Make the masses happy by redistributing much of the tribute received, in popular ways.
			* Use the monopoly of force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing violence. (Noting that 'more primitive' society groups are in fact rather violent.)
			* Construct a justifying ideology or religion. (As an additional benefit, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other - by providing them with a bond not based on kinship. It gives also people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.)

			He lists the reasons for states' triumphs over simpler entities when the collided (p.281-286):
			* states usually enjoyed an advantage of weaponry and other technology
			* a large numerical advantage in population
			* a centralized decision maker has the advantage of concentrating troops and resources
			* the official religions and patriotic fervor of many states make their troops willing to fight suicidally

			Diamond also theorizes about the origin of the state (p.283). He notes that the French philosopher [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] speculated that states are formed by a social contract, a rational decision reached when people calculated their self-interest, came to the agreement that they would be better off in a state than in simpler societies and voluntarily did away with them. But observation and historical records have failed to uncover a single case of a state's being formed in that ethereal atmosphere of dispassionate farsightedness. Smaller units do not voluntarily abandon their sovereignty and merge into larger units. They do so only by conquest, or under external duress.

			Diamond claims that food production and 'societal complexity' stimulate each other. Further, he claims complex centralized societies are uniquely capable of organizing public works, long-distance trade and activities of different groups of economic specialists.

			So, what are his ultimate reasons for the emergence of states (p.286-287):
			* the problem of conflict between unrelated strangers, which increases with the size of groups
			* growing impossibility of communal decision-making
			* "Large societies can function economically only if they have a redistributive economy in addition to a reciprocal economy. Goods in excess of an individual's needs must be transferred from the individual to a centralized authority, which then redistributes the goods to individuals with benefits."
			* densely populated regions require large and complexly organized societies

			On the other side, the political theorist Albert Jay Nock and the economist Murray Rothbard suggested a typical pattern in history nearly the opposite of Diamond's. They hypothesized that states arise when some nomadic people, who have been repeatedly raiding a nearby society of relatively peaceful farmers over an extended period, come to realize that it is more profitable to settle right in the farming community as rulers, enabling them to continually raid the productive population in the form of taxes. (See Nock, 1935, and Rothbard, 1978.)<ref name="Callahan_Diamond">Gene Callahan. [http://mises.org/daily/1774 "The Diamond Fallacy"], ''Mises Daily''. Referenced 2012-05-21.</ref>

			More on this later. [[User:Pestergaines\|Pestergaines]] 17:51, 21 May 2012 (MSD)

			==References==
			{{Reflist}}

Forgottenman: unsigned

2010-11-24T13:01:11Z

unsigned

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 24 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	nice! i like this already		nice! i like this already <span style="font-size:smaller;">—''unsigned comment by'' [[User:190.212.56.112\|190.212.56.112]] ([[User talk:190.212.56.112\|talk]]) {{#if:190.212.56.112\|01:18, 24 November 2010}}.</span><!-- {{unsigned}}-->

190.212.56.112: Created page with "nice! i like this already"

2010-11-24T06:18:30Z

Created page with "nice! i like this already"

New page

nice! i like this already