States Rights: What do you think?

[Twilight Imperium]

None of these things are necessary for a state to be legitimate. I don't understand the kink all of you have with the social contract.

That's entirely fair. None of us understand the kink you have with the Lockean state of nature.

[Arkolon]

None of these things are necessary for a state to be legitimate. I don't understand the kink all of you have with the social contract.

That's entirely fair. None of us understand the kink you have with the Lockean state of nature.

The state of nature is the grounds for political philosophy. Social contract theory is built from state of nature theory. I'm just asking you, since the social contract is not necessary to justify the modern state, why do you still consider it as true?

[Twilight Imperium]

That's entirely fair. None of us understand the kink you have with the Lockean state of nature.

The state of nature is the grounds for political philosophy. Social contract theory is built from state of nature theory. I'm just asking you, since the social contract is not necessary to justify the modern state, why do you still consider it as true?

Because I feel that the modern state justifies itself by existing. It is, therefore, it is. The social contract theory describes these interactions, and therefore has merit.

[Arkolon]

I have a bit of an issue with Weber since the state derives its power from the governed, not from the state itself.

There are multiple "thoughts" in philosophy, not just one. I don't agree with Weber either.

So how do you define the state? Remember that the definition has to make a clear cut between what is the government and what is the state, as the two things are quite different.

Philosophy is a social construct

I'm not sure one can use "social construct" this way.

therefore, there is/can be no "right" answer.

There is no one correct philosophy, but there are philosophies more correct than others. It all depends on what your goals, principles, or desires are.

[Arkolon]

The state of nature is the grounds for political philosophy. Social contract theory is built from state of nature theory. I'm just asking you, since the social contract is not necessary to justify the modern state, why do you still consider it as true?

Because I feel that the modern state justifies itself by existing. It is, therefore, it is. The social contract theory describes these interactions, and therefore has merit.

It is therefore it is, OK, but I could also say that the All Seeing God handles all interactions between man and state. It could be true, but isn't necessary in justifying the state or its interactions between individuals and itself, so why add it?

[Ifreann]

I wonder when all this philosophy talk will get back to the actual topic at hand...

[Twilight Imperium]

Because I feel that the modern state justifies itself by existing. It is, therefore, it is. The social contract theory describes these interactions, and therefore has merit.

It is therefore it is, OK, but I could also say that the All Seeing God handles all interactions between man and state. It could be true, but isn't necessary in justifying the state or its interactions between individuals and itself, so why add it?

For the same reason you add Newton's laws of motion or General Relativity to describe the effects of gravity. It has nothing to do with justification, and more to do with useful descriptions of concepts.

[Twilight Imperium]

There are multiple "thoughts" in philosophy, not just one. I don't agree with Weber either.

So how do you define the state? Remember that the definition has to make a clear cut between what is the government and what is the state, as the two things are quite different.

The State is a gestalt entity comprised of elements such as population, territory, common laws, and other such things. Government is its agent that enables it to act.

The State is Galactus. Government is the Silver Surfer.

[Arkolon]

It is therefore it is, OK, but I could also say that the All Seeing God handles all interactions between man and state. It could be true, but isn't necessary in justifying the state or its interactions between individuals and itself, so why add it?

For the same reason you add Newton's laws of motion or General Relativity to describe the effects of gravity. It has nothing to do with justification, and more to do with useful descriptions of concepts.

Scientific theory has nothing to do with political philosophy: without Newton's laws of motion, gravity would not be a theory. Since gravity is a scientific theory, its tried-and-true accounts and descriptions are extremely necessary. The state is not a theory, and as such does not function in the same way as scientific theory-- examples, descriptions, experiments, none of these are necessary in justifying the state.

[Arkolon]

So how do you define the state? Remember that the definition has to make a clear cut between what is the government and what is the state, as the two things are quite different.

The State is a gestalt entity comprised of elements such as population, territory, common laws, and other such things. Government is its agent that enables it to act.

Such a definition is poorly defined and would overlook all cases of anarchism, calling them statist societies because they have populations, territories, laws, etc. There is only ONE thing that makes the state a state. What is it, if not a Gewaltmonopol?

[Twilight Imperium]

For the same reason you add Newton's laws of motion or General Relativity to describe the effects of gravity. It has nothing to do with justification, and more to do with useful descriptions of concepts.

Scientific theory has nothing to do with political philosophy: without Newton's laws of motion, gravity would not be a theory. Since gravity is a scientific theory, its tried-and-true accounts and descriptions are extremely necessary. The state is not a theory, and as such does not function in the same way as scientific theory-- examples, descriptions, experiments, none of these are necessary in justifying the state.

I didn't mean to imply that it did. Merely that the relationship is that b describes a while being unnecessary for its function, whereas b is social contract theory and the laws of motion, and a is society and gravity.

[Twilight Imperium]

The State is a gestalt entity comprised of elements such as population, territory, common laws, and other such things. Government is its agent that enables it to act.

Such a definition is poorly defined and would overlook all cases of anarchism, calling them statist societies because they have populations, territories, laws, etc. There is only ONE thing that makes the state a state. What is it, if not a Gewaltmonopol?

Is anarchism the lack of a state, or the lack of a government? One could easily have a governmentless state, but not a stateless government.

[Skinia]

Such a definition is poorly defined and would overlook all cases of anarchism, calling them statist societies because they have populations, territories, laws, etc. There is only ONE thing that makes the state a state. What is it, if not a Gewaltmonopol?

Is anarchism the lack of a state, or the lack of a government? One could easily have a governmentless state, but not a stateless government.

Anarchy is antihierarchy and I think your discussion doesn't concern the topic at hand.

[Arkolon]

Scientific theory has nothing to do with political philosophy: without Newton's laws of motion, gravity would not be a theory. Since gravity is a scientific theory, its tried-and-true accounts and descriptions are extremely necessary. The state is not a theory, and as such does not function in the same way as scientific theory-- examples, descriptions, experiments, none of these are necessary in justifying the state.

I didn't mean to imply that it did. Merely that the relationship is that b describes a while being unnecessary for its function, whereas b is social contract theory and the laws of motion, and a is society and gravity.

So, you agree that it is unnecessary in justifying the state, yet you want to use heterodox eighteenth-century philosophy in 2014 because... ?

Social contract theorists used the contract to justify the state, and you agreeing that the social contract is unnecessary really puzzles me as to why you still want to use it.

[Twilight Imperium]

So, you agree that it is unnecessary in justifying the state, yet you want to use heterodox eighteenth-century philosophy in 2014 because... ?

Social contract theorists used the contract to justify the state, and you agreeing that the social contract is unnecessary really puzzles me as to why you still want to use it.

Well, we have to describe the actions and basis of society somehow if we want to have discussions about them.

Anarchy is antihierarchy and I think your discussion doesn't concern the topic at hand.

A discussion about the nature of states doesn't have anything to do with a discussion of whether or not they have rights?

[Skinia]

So, you agree that it is unnecessary in justifying the state, yet you want to use heterodox eighteenth-century philosophy in 2014 because... ?

Social contract theorists used the contract to justify the state, and you agreeing that the social contract is unnecessary really puzzles me as to why you still want to use it.

Well, we have to describe the actions and basis of society somehow if we want to have discussions about them.

Anarchy is antihierarchy and I think your discussion doesn't concern the topic at hand.

A discussion about the nature of states doesn't have anything to do with a discussion of whether or not they have rights?

I think you and I know what exactly we're supposed to discuss here.

[Twilight Imperium]

I think you and I know what exactly we're supposed to discuss here.

Well, we can either discuss whether they do exist and/or are superceded by Federal ones, or whether they should be. They currently are superceded, ipso facto, so the discussion naturally turns to the "should". Which shockingly has less to do with America specifically and more to do with political philosophy in general.

No?

[Olerand]

So how do you define the state? Remember that the definition has to make a clear cut between what is the government and what is the state, as the two things are quite different.

I'm not sure one can use "social construct" this way.

There is no one correct philosophy, but there are philosophies more correct than others. It all depends on what your goals, principles, or desires are.

The State is the political and judicial organization of a certain territory, first defined in French by the first dictionary of l'Académie Française, in 1696, as "the government of a people living under the domination of a prince or republic".
The sovereign State is bound by its demarcated borders, and makes and applies laws within its territory, enforced by institutions through which it exerts its influence/authority.
The legitimacy of a State, in democracies, is derived from the people it governs.

A government, distinct from the State since the development of Hegelian thought, is an entity that exercises executive authority in a nation. In France, that is the Presidency/Premiership/Council of Ministers.

Both of these notions are also separate from the "nation".

Yes, it is. Philosophy was made up by humans, it is a construct of the human mind, and does not exist in nature.

Depending on one's views and philosophies. I am a Sartrian existentialist, and to me that is the "most correct" philosophy; a theistic Catholic clearly disagrees. Neither one of us is right.

[Skinia]

I think you and I know what exactly we're supposed to discuss here.

Well, we can either discuss whether they do exist and/or are superceded by Federal ones, or whether they should be. They currently are superceded, ipso facto, so the discussion naturally turns to the "should". Which shockingly has less to do with America specifically and more to do with political philosophy in general.

No?

Do what you will.

[Twilight Imperium]

Well, we can either discuss whether they do exist and/or are superceded by Federal ones, or whether they should be. They currently are superceded, ipso facto, so the discussion naturally turns to the "should". Which shockingly has less to do with America specifically and more to do with political philosophy in general.

No?

Do what you will.

If you would prefer, we can hash it out elsewhere and let you know how it turns out?

[Skinia]

Do what you will.

If you would prefer, we can hash it out elsewhere and let you know how it turns out?

Nah, I don't give too much of a fuck. Just notifying you before a mod would.

[WestRedMaple]

Can any of you give me an example of when Federal law unconstitutionally passes state law?

No, because there's this thing called the Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause only applies to things over which the federal government actually has authority. When the federal government does something the have not been given legal authority to do (such as drug bans, regulation of commerce inside of states, etc), it is in violation of the Constitution.

[Genivaria]

States don't have rights. People have rights, states have powers.

[Atlanticatia]

First thing: states rights are not and never will be.
The federal government can give states' more autonomy, but there is no such thing as 'states rights'.


Personally, I'd like to see our federal system go one of two ways. We'll either have to have a stronger federal government (similar to Australia), or give more powers to the states over tax, welfare, etc (like Canada and the provinces). It's awkward being in the middle like we are now.

The ideal choice would be to have a stronger federal government. At the very least, I'd like to see welfare and public health care returned to being federal responsibilities. I do recognize the value of having powers for states, too, though. For example, our federal system is allowing Vermont to experiment with single payer health care. I think that it's important to find a balance, but ultimately a larger federal government will ultimately be more efficient. State powers should be reserved for things that are local issues (infrastructure, prisons, etc etc)

[MERIZoC]

The state has as many rights as—oh, you mean rights of US states.

IMO, states "rights" are only applicable when defending individual freedom, not when oppressing it. So, for example, if a state wanted to break from the feds to legalize weed, that would be fine. But if a state wanted to break from the feds to ban gay marriage, that would not be okay. The reasoning behind this is that the whole argument for states rights hinges on the idea that people shouldn't be forced to be stuck with the ideologies of the many people outside their state, when the majority inside it disagrees with those ideals. The arguments for personal freedoms are similar. Just like the Texans have no right to tell a New Yorker how to live their lives, straight people have no right to tell gay people how to live their lives.