Free and open challenge to anti-statists, open borders supporters

[Bryan]

I would offer as one alternative that your layman's definition isn't really a definition of the word "state" but of the word "government." As already mentioned, that definition would exclude North Korea and other similar entities. On the other hand, it includes things like neighborhood groups, churches, and so on, which are not normally considered states.

Alternatively, I would offer as a definition of a state the following (which might need tweaking, since I'm going off the cuff):


This definition might not be ideal either, since it would include street gangs. But then, the initial bias I have against broadening the definition of "state" to include street gangs may not be valid. Truth be told, I can't think of a good reason not to call them states.

I think the big disconnect that is often had is consent vs. not consent, and I would also add as to what the grievances are for those who do not consent.

So the question comes to, can there be a state/government derived only from those who consent it? Or must all states, by definition, include people who don't consent?

How is having non-consent a requirement to being a state?

 

[Sentient Void]

Isn't the individualist perspective required by your use of the word "individual" in your definition?

For example, I have trouble seeing how North Korea could be considered a group of individuals self-organizing as they see fit.

And for similar, though less obvious reasons, I also have trouble seeing how the USA could be considered a group of individuals self-organizing as they see fit.

This is the democratic idealist's vision / perception of their state. Unfortunately it has no basis in reality.

 

[erowe1]

I think the big disconnect that is often had is consent vs. not consent, and I would also add as to what the grievances are for those who do not consent.

So the question comes to, can there be a state/government derived only from those who consent it? Or must all states, by definition, include people who don't consent?

I would say that certain governments definitely derive their powers entirely from the consent of the governed. That would include the examples I gave of neighborhood groups and churches. In fact, it might include almost every kind of government that is not a state.

How is having non-consent a requirement to being a state?

I'm not sure if it has to be. But I offer it as a way to distinguish government from the state. One argument in favor of including that, or something like that, in the definition of "state" is that I can't think of any examples of something I would comfortably call a state for which that criterion is not true. Can you?

 

[Sentient Void]

I think the big disconnect that is often had is consent vs. not consent, and I would also add as to what the grievances are for those who do not consent.

So the question comes to, can there be a state/government derived only from those who consent it? Or must all states, by definition, include people who don't consent?

How is having non-consent a requirement to being a state?

See the Rothbard definition on what is and isn't a 'state'. If it's consent, then I believe it is not a 'state', though it may be considered contractual government. But as per my blog here at the RP forums and as HB34 has aptly noted, 'the state' and 'government' are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Bryan]

It isn't a "claim"; I'm new around here and that sort of thing seems to happen regularly enough. You seemed to be wondering why you didn't have any takers...

Fair enough.

I will always define any iteration of any real or imagined state negatively, because I want nothing to do with being ruled over in any way by anyone else, nor do I have any interest in ruling over anyone else, in anyway.

I can completely respect not wanting to be ruled over, nor wanting to rule. But what if the state is 100% composed of individuals who consent to it?

You can't find 100% consensus between two people, let alone some number greater than that. Any state is going to require the submission of rights of at least one individual living within its bounds.

Agreed, but if the individual consented to the terms of the state, then is there an issue?

An individual defining his justly acquired property is a far different thing from the state arbitrarily defining "its" territory.

Since a state only exists as a man-made construct, and the individuals within that state can have justly acquired property, why can they authorize control of some of their property to the entity that controls the state?

I think it's inevitable that, once this entity within society is allowed to exist there will be those who will seek to use its power for his or her own ends, however limited they may be, at first.

I would say that it is within many peoples natures to seek power, and when you create a power base such as within a state you will invite corruption into it. This is certainly a good axiom as to why government should be limited, and power bases minimized. That said, it isn't to say that people can't choose to consent to what they wish.

 

[Bryan]

If it's consent, then I believe it is not a 'state',

Why can you not have a state that is formed only by consent? (Sorry if that's repetitious, but it's a key point)

 

[Wesker1982]

Why can you not have a state that is formed only by consent? (Sorry if that's repetitious, but it's a key point)

Because being non-consensual is a requirement for it to be a State with the definition being used...

 

[teacherone]

a state formed by consent can only last one generation.

 

[erowe1]

Why can you not have a state that is formed only by consent? (Sorry if that's repetitious, but it's a key point)

It is a key.

Speaking for myself, I would not be able to take a thorough going anti-state position if "state" includes things that are formed only by consent, which is why I needed you to clarify that before engaging in the debate.

Judging from what I've seen from others in this thread, it looks like I'm not alone in that.

And if the only kind of state that you would approve of is one that derives its powers solely from the consent of the governed, then you might not be as far from an anti-statist as the OP implies.

 

[Wesker1982]

Says who?

Anyone who didn't give explicit consent to the power granted.

Are you saying this is true for every state, or just some / most?

If it is consensual then it is not a State (as SV pointed out).

 

[erowe1]

Bryan, can you formulate a definition of a state that does not include voluntary associations, like Boy Scout troops, churches, synagogues, sports teams, and so on, but that does include North Korea, the USA, and so on, without using consent as an essential characteristic distinguishing those two kinds of things?

 

[Bryan]

I would say that certain governments definitely derive their powers entirely from the consent of the governed. That would include the examples I gave of neighborhood groups and churches. In fact, it might include almost every kind of government that is not a state.

I would say that a home owners association is a good example of individual's consenting to the association, based upon their purchase of land within a defined geographical boundary. What happens when this expands? At what point is there non consent?

I'm not sure if it has to be. But I offer it as a way to distinguish government from the state. One argument in favor of including that, or something like that, in the definition of "state" is that I can't think of any examples of something I would comfortably call a state for which that criterion is not true. Can you?

If you are asking if there are currently any free states on this planet that everyone consents to, I would say no, there aren't. That isn't a proof that none could be, however, or justification that there should never be any states.

 

[Bryan]

Because being non-consensual is a requirement for it to be a State with the definition being used...

Being used by who? Us? Some political philosophers? Or the general public?

For me, the definition that is important is that of the general public, based on the context that if you want to spread a message to them then it is important to use language and terms that they can understand and relate to. With that, as I posted prior, "I think a common meaning, in not-so-common language, would be "a group of individuals within a defined geographical area self-organizing as they see fit." At least that's what would fit for a definition of a free state, in which a great deal of people support."

I think most people imply there is consent, hence the argument of "if you don't like it, leave".

I am open for discussion and analysis on this non-precise definition.

 

[erowe1]

I would say that a home owners association is a good example of individual's consenting to the association, based upon their purchase of land within a defined geographical boundary. What happens when this expands? At what point is there non consent?


If you are asking if there are currently any free states on this planet that everyone consents to, I would say no, there aren't. That isn't a proof that none could be, however, or justification that there should never be any states.

I wasn't asserting anything about what can and can't exist or should or shouldn't exist. We're trying to nail down a definition here. And definitions have to be posited and agreed upon, not discovered and proven. We can't even begin to debate whether there should ever be any states until we come to terms on what states are.

For defining a word like "state" we need to know what things we mean to include by that term, and what are the essential characteristics that those things have in common, and that provide the basis for our calling them that. We also need to think about what things we might want to exclude from the term and formulate the definition in a way that clearly excludes those things.

Here, for example, it looks like you mean to include home owners associations as examples of states. I don't know if that was your intent or not. But if it was, then that would be a good illustration of how you're using a different definition than I use, since I wouldn't call home owners associations states.

Incidentally, I think the concept of consent was in the legal definition you provided earlier, in the phrase "control over all persons and things within its boundaries."

 

[Bryan]

If it is consensual then it is not a State (as SV pointed out).

See my previous post.

 

[Bryan]

a state formed by consent can only last one generation.

Why? (Not necessarily disagreeing, just asking for discussion purposes).

 

[teacherone]

at the risk of repeating myself a government by consent of the people can only last one generation.

after that, the children of the original founders are left with one option - "if you don't like it, leave."

 

[teacherone]

Why? (Not necessarily disagreeing, just asking for discussion purposes).

because the children are born under an already established government they had no hand in forming.

 

[Bryan]

Bryan, can you formulate a definition of a state that does not include voluntary associations, like Boy Scout troops, churches, synagogues, sports teams, and so on, but that does include North Korea, the USA, and so on, without using consent as an essential characteristic distinguishing those two kinds of things?

Yes, to me, it certainly seems possible for there to be states that have complete consent and ones that don't- but those that don't certainly can have issues with being morally valid. I think there can be three classes of states/governments:
1- Those that you voluntary agree to it's terms, principles, and policies.
2- Those that one does not agree to, but the principles of this government only provide value to you.
3- Those that one does not agree to and the principles of the government take from you.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, to me, it certainly seems possible for there to be states that have complete consent and ones that don't- but those that don't certainly can have issues with being morally valid. I think there can be three classes of states/governments:
1- Those that you voluntary agree to it's terms, principles, and policies.
2- Those that one does not agree to, but the principles of this government only provide value to you.
3- Those that one does not agree to and the principles of the government take from you.

That doesn't quite meet my challenge, since it doesn't exclude the kinds of non-state voluntary associations I gave examples of. Or do you consider those things states?