Politics is an immoral dead-end

[anthonybpugh]

Are you playing devils advocate or do you seriously believe this nonsense?  Talk about silly.  Try rereading some of your claims and you will have silly. 

[Vitruvian]

The definition of "State" includes logically-impossible properties, making it non-real by definition.

Which property of the State, as defined by Wikipedia ("a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area"), is logically impossible?  I see none.   

[MaineShark]

Are you playing devils advocate or do you seriously believe this nonsense?  Talk about silly.  Try rereading some of your claims and you will have silly.

I take it this is an admission that you can't actually back up your ridiculous claims?

The definition of "State" includes logically-impossible properties, making it non-real by definition.

Which property of the State, as defined by Wikipedia ("a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area"), is logically impossible?  I see none.

Given that the Wikipedia definition is grossly inaccurate, as already demonstrated, this is nonsense.

Joe

[Vitruvian]

Given that the Wikipedia definition is grossly inaccurate, as already demonstrated, this is nonsense.

The definition is accurate because it describes reality: political associations, which exist, do have effective dominion over certain geographic areas (most of the land area of Earth, for instance).

Your quibble with this definition is still unclear to me.  I repeat, which of its elements is logically impossible?

[anthonybpugh]

Are you playing devils advocate or do you seriously believe this nonsense?  Talk about silly.  Try rereading some of your claims and you will have silly.

I take it this is an admission that you can't actually back up your ridiculous claims?

The definition of "State" includes logically-impossible properties, making it non-real by definition.

Which property of the State, as defined by Wikipedia ("a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area"), is logically impossible?  I see none.

Given that the Wikipedia definition is grossly inaccurate, as already demonstrated, this is nonsense.

Joe

Wikipedia is grossly inaccurate?  Oh I have got to hear your rationale for this claim.  Please enlighten us all.  How is it grossly inaccurate?  Because it disagrees with what you have been saying?  If that is inaccurate, then what should it say?  What should be my source in understanding this thing called the state.  Please tell me, inquiring minds want to know. 

[MaineShark]

Given that the Wikipedia definition is grossly inaccurate, as already demonstrated, this is nonsense.

The definition is accurate because it describes reality: political associations, which exist, do have effective dominion over certain geographic areas (most of the land area of Earth, for instance).

Your quibble with this definition is still unclear to me.  I repeat, which of its elements is logically impossible?

Sigh...

As already stated, that definition is overly-broad, and includes even completely-voluntary communities.  According to that definition, an anarchic society, based solely upon unanimous consent, is a "State."  That's just silly.  It's like when the anti-gun advocates include suicides in the "accidental death" category, to try and pad the numbers.  The author of that definition was clearly trying to support the State by including all forms of governance as examples of States.

The State is a particular form of governance which does all those things you just described, but also asserts a "right" to initiate force against those who do not choose to participate.  That's when you get the shift from "government" to "State."

Joe

[Vitruvian]

The State is a particular form of governance which does all those things you just described, but also asserts a "right" to initiate force against those who do not choose to participate.  That's when you get the shift from "government" to "State."

The word dominion in the Wikipedia definition implies the use of force.  Dominion is defined as "the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority" (from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominion).

Any political association with effective dominion over a geographic area is a State.  Therefore, States do exist, Q.E.D.

Now that this side issue is settled, we can return to the original topic, that of participation in a State-sponsored political system.

[shyfrog]

The State is a particular form of governance which does all those things you just described, but also asserts a "right" to initiate force against those who do not choose to participate.  That's when you get the shift from "government" to "State."

The word dominion in the Wikipedia definition implies the use of force.  Dominion is defined as "the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority" (from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominion).

I am an individual. I have the power and right to control what is mine. Sovereign as it were.

Any political association with effective dominion over a geographic area is a State.  Therefore, States do exist, Q.E.D.

I just voted myself ruler over the things I own. I own property. It is a geographic area. Welcome to my State.

Now that this side issue is settled, we can return to the original topic, that of participation in a State-sponsored political system.

Your original statement called the participation in State-sponsored political systems evil. Do you believe that property (land) ownership is inherently evil? Are you also a Georgist?

[MaineShark]

The State is a particular form of governance which does all those things you just described, but also asserts a "right" to initiate force against those who do not choose to participate.  That's when you get the shift from "government" to "State."

The word dominion in the Wikipedia definition implies the use of force.  Dominion is defined as "the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority" (from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominion).

Any political association with effective dominion over a geographic area is a State.  Therefore, States do exist, Q.E.D.

Now that this side issue is settled, we can return to the original topic, that of participation in a State-sponsored political system.

This is nonsensical.  A government could obtain "dominion" over an area by the consent of those who live there.  No need to initiate force to do that.

A State is only that form of government which initiates force in order to obtain control.

Joe

[Vitruvian]

A State is only that form of government which initiates force in order to obtain control.

...in other words, every government on the face of the Earth.  Again, the Wikipedia definition of State says nothing about the legitimacy of the "political association" being requisite for Statehood, only the possession of effective dominion (a word which implies the initiation of force, i.e. domination or control).
From the fact that some people (statists) ascribe illogical qualities to the State (e.g. legitimacy), it does not follow that the State does not exist.  Catholics ascribe the quality of infallibility to the Pope, but that does not mean he does not exist.

[MaineShark]

A State is only that form of government which initiates force in order to obtain control.

...in other words, every government on the face of the Earth.

Currently.  But not every possible form of government.  We all know that you are wedded to the State and cannot actually imagine anarchic societies existing, but a good percentage of the rest of us can...

Again, the Wikipedia definition of State says nothing about the legitimacy of the "political association" being requisite for Statehood, only the possession of effective dominion (a word which implies the initiation of force, i.e. domination or control).

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.  End of story.  You haven't found any defect with the definition that those of us who are approaching this from a legitimate, philosophical standpoint are using, excepting that it apparently annoys you to be wrong all the time, and you'd rather try and pretend that others wrong, too, instead of behaving rationally and examining the evidence.

Your definition was proven faulty because it includes anarchic societies as "States."  I'm sure you love being able to pretend that your beloved State could somehow "become" anarchy without actually going away, but you can't eat your cake and have it, too.

From the fact that some people (statists) ascribe illogical qualities to the State (e.g. legitimacy), it does not follow that the State does not exist.  Catholics ascribe the quality of infallibility to the Pope, but that does not mean he does not exist.

Infallibility is property which has a non-zero probability of existence.  It is logically possible for a Pope to be infallible.  I think it highly unlikely, but I can't in any rational manner rule it out.

"Right to initiate force" has no possibility of existence.  The two are not comparable.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source.  End of story.  You haven't found any defect with the definition that those of us who are approaching this from a legitimate, philosophical standpoint are using, excepting that it apparently annoys you to be wrong all the time, and you'd rather try and pretend that others wrong, too, instead of behaving rationally and examining the evidence.

Your definition was proven faulty because it includes anarchic societies as "States."  I'm sure you love being able to pretend that your beloved State could somehow "become" anarchy without actually going away, but you can't eat your cake and have it, too.

Then what would be an authoritative source? 

How can you have any rational and logical examination of any subject without defining your terms?  You say that wikipedia is not authoritative or reliable.  Then perhaps you can identify a better source.  Actually, what I would like to see is any source that supports your point of view. 

[MaineShark]

How can you have any rational and logical examination of any subject without defining your terms?

I did define the term.  Numerous times.

You say that wikipedia is not authoritative or reliable.  Then perhaps you can identify a better source.  Actually, what I would like to see is any source that supports your point of view.

I already gave you a definition.  I'm not claiming that it is right because it comes from some "authority," and that would be the only reason to source it.  I have presented it as independently correct, and no one has demonstrated (or even attempted to demonstrate) any fault in it.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

I already gave you a definition.  I'm not claiming that it is right because it comes from some "authority," and that would be the only reason to source it.  I have presented it as independently correct, and no one has demonstrated (or even attempted to demonstrate) any fault in it.

Yes, I know you have given a definition.  What I would like to know is why your definition should be accepted over that of the one provided by wikipedia?  What makes your definition more authoritative than theirs?   

No one can demonstrate any fault in your definition?  So posting an alternative definition is not an attempt at demonstrating a fault in your definition?

Here is a definition from Auburn Political Science Department which works pretty well.  It is more specific

"A specialized type of political organization characterized by a full-time, specialized, professional work force of tax-collectors, soldiers, policemen, bureaucrats and the like that exercises supreme political authority over a defined territory with a permanent population, independent from any enduring external political control and possessing a local predominance of coercive power (always supplemented with moral and remunerative incentives as well) great enough to maintain general obedience to its laws or commands within its territorial borders.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/state

[MaineShark]

I already gave you a definition.  I'm not claiming that it is right because it comes from some "authority," and that would be the only reason to source it.  I have presented it as independently correct, and no one has demonstrated (or even attempted to demonstrate) any fault in it.

Yes, I know you have given a definition.  What I would like to know is why your definition should be accepted over that of the one provided by wikipedia?  What makes your definition more authoritative than theirs?

Nothing makes it "more authoritative."  I have no interest in asserting authority over others.

No one can demonstrate any fault in your definition?  So posting an alternative definition is not an attempt at demonstrating a fault in your definition?

No, it's not.  It's whining that you dislike my definition.  Demonstrating fault is something along the lines of: "your definition cannot be accurate, because it includes anarchic societies as 'States'."

Here is a definition from Auburn Political Science Department which works pretty well.  It is more specific

"A specialized type of political organization characterized by a full-time, specialized, professional work force of tax-collectors, soldiers, policemen, bureaucrats and the like that exercises supreme political authority over a defined territory with a permanent population, independent from any enduring external political control and possessing a local predominance of coercive power (always supplemented with moral and remunerative incentives as well) great enough to maintain general obedience to its laws or commands within its territorial borders.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/state

Uh, that concurs with my definition, and not the Wikipedia definition [emphasis added to demonstrate], although it is excessively specific - an elegant definition should include the minimum necessary to isolate the entity being defined, without extraneous comments (eg, tax-collectors, which might not be necessary).

Joe