The case for the State

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state. Evidence that the state is superior is that the entire planet is currently governed by states. The recorded history of mankind clearly shows that some form of state existed in nearly every society.

Even from a market oriented perspective states are formed by a desire of the people that are bound by the state so then history has shown that people have chosen states to govern them.

Even if there are other possible alternatives proposed to the state, known have shown the demonstrated ability to be functional.

 

 

Clearly a logical fallacy. Just because something exists does not mean that it is good. By this logic, murder is moral because it happens every day.

Where did he say the state was "good"?

Maxliberty:

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state. Evidence that the state is superior is that the entire planet is currently governed by states. The recorded history of mankind clearly shows that some form of state existed in nearly every society.

Even from a market oriented perspective states are formed by a desire of the people that are bound by the state so then history has shown that people have chosen states to govern them.

Even if there are other possible alternatives proposed to the state, known have shown the demonstrated ability to be functional.

 

 

A perfect example of why I hate the historical school...

Maxliberty:

 

Even from a market oriented perspective states are formed by a desire of the people that are bound by the state so then history has shown that people have chosen states to govern them.

 

 

I severely disagree that people "have chosen States to govern them". it is the complete opposite, State choose the people they want to govern.

Maxliberty:

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state. Evidence that the state is superior is that the entire planet is currently governed by states. The recorded history of mankind clearly shows that some form of state existed in nearly every society.

Even from a market oriented perspective states are formed by a desire of the people that are bound by the state so then history has shown that people have chosen states to govern them.

Even if there are other possible alternatives proposed to the state, known have shown the demonstrated ability to be functional.

 

 

From that logic & premise, I would disagree, and comment that assuming the state would still exist in portions of the world, that panarchy / panarchism would be the most optimal. 

Maxliberty:

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state. Evidence that the state is superior is that the entire planet is currently governed by states.

Non sequitur. That's like saying theism is superior because most people are theists. Further, argumentum ad populam IS a fallacy.

 

He attempted to justify it by a supposed historical argument. By this account, anything that has a long-lasting historical precedent has a "case".

-Jon

Someone I know outside these forums had this response to the OP's argument:

Yep, and the majority of states in all of human history have been oppresive, murderous affairs. Obviously this is optimal.

 

Maxliberty:

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state.

 Yes, good point. Now answer the question: does the society need to be governed?

 

Maybe you need a master. Fine. I don't need one and I don't want you to impose one on me.

 

By the way, I'm now sure I'm not interest in the Liberty Colony project.

tim:

Maxliberty:

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state.

 Yes, good point. Now answer the question: does the society need to be governed?


Maybe you need a master. Fine. I don't need one and I don't want you to impose one on me.


By the way, I'm now sure I'm not interest in the Liberty Colony project.

I'm not so sure if this represents MaxLiberty's own views.  I thought it was merley a hypothetical premise (one that often pops up in arguments, or at least reflects similar defenses of the state in arguments, at least) that is to be debated.

On that note, I second Plauche's post; the premise doesn't take into account the effects of The State existing, which can be demonstrably negative in every sense of the word.

ML's premise also assumes too much in saying that something that seemingly has existed in every society in somehow "optimal" because it persists; it would be the same as saying prejudice has existed in every society, and therefore, is "required", which is more or less what I got from the OP's premise of The State being "optimal".

A few of my own (admittedly, not unique) counters to The State being optimal would be taking into account to life before the concept of Statism, and the process of evolution, a concept not limited, obviously, to genetics.

I think assuming that MaxLiberty's post here represents his own views is too reactionary & is based on disagreement with his LC project.  I do think a clarification on the OP would help, however.

Maxliberty:

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state. Evidence that the state is superior is that the entire planet is currently governed by states. The recorded history of mankind clearly shows that some form of state existed in nearly every society.

Even from a market oriented perspective states are formed by a desire of the people that are bound by the state so then history has shown that people have chosen states to govern them.

Even if there are other possible alternatives proposed to the state, known have shown the demonstrated ability to be functional.

 

 

Let me mimick this line of arguement to show you how absurd it is:

It's the 18th century. Chattel slavery is efficient and right. Evidence that chattel slavery is efficient and right is that it currently exists in various forms across the world. The recorded history of mankind clearly shows that some form of slavery existed in nearly every society.

Even from a freedom oriented perspective slavery occurs by a desire of the people that are enslaved so then history has shown that people have chosen masters to enslave them.

Even if there are other possible alternatives proposed to slave societies, none have shown the demonstrated ability to be functional.

*end of mimick*

Yet chattel slavery wasn't efficient or good, and it was abolished. Pointing to the status quo or the prevailance of something in the past isn't necessarily definitive proof that it is efficient, good or inevitable. Taking such a conservative historical attitude, no change or progress could possibly ever occur. It's a self-fulfulling prophecy.

Furthermore, you conflate the mere existance of something with "evidence" that it exists as a consequence of voluntary choice. It does not follow at all that whatever happens to be the case in the present or past had to have been universally chosen. This essentially obliterates the meaning of voluntary and coercive.

Brainpolice:

Maxliberty:

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state. Evidence that the state is superior is that the entire planet is currently governed by states. The recorded history of mankind clearly shows that some form of state existed in nearly every society.

Even from a market oriented perspective states are formed by a desire of the people that are bound by the state so then history has shown that people have chosen states to govern them.

Even if there are other possible alternatives proposed to the state, known have shown the demonstrated ability to be functional.

 

 

Let me mimick this line of arguement to show you how absurd it is:

It's the 18th century. Chattel slavery is efficient and right. Evidence that chattel slavery is efficient and right is that it currently exists in various forms across the world. The recorded history of mankind clearly shows that some form of slavery existed in nearly every society.

Even from a freedom oriented perspective slavery occurs by a desire of the people that are enslaved so then history has shwon that people have chosen masters to enslave them.

Even if there are other possible alternatives proposed to slave societies, none have shown the demonstrated ability to be functional.

Bingo.  In retrospect, maybe I shouldn't have treated the premise as legitmate, because it seems as if it were just posted for the sake of the holes in the argument 

Jon Irenicus:

He attempted to justify it by a supposed historical argument. By this account, anything that has a long-lasting historical precedent has a "case".

-Jon

This is in part my point. Things that do exist have a case for their justificiation. The state or more explicitly the monoploly of force by an entitiy over others has a long historical precedent. Do you aruge that we ignore what people are actually doing and have done for 10,000 years in favor of what you think they should do? The state's existence at least in part must represent the choices of the people under its dominion.

tim:

Maxliberty:

The optimal form of governance of a society is the state.

 Yes, good point. Now answer the question: does the society need to be governed?

 

Maybe you need a master. Fine. I don't need one and I don't want you to impose one on me.

 

By the way, I'm now sure I'm not interest in the Liberty Colony project.

I am establishing the Liberty Colony and your living in the workers paradise in France and your questioning by freedom credentials.....laughable my friend.

Society needs order and to the extent that the state provides order it serves this critical purpose.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Someone I know outside these forums had this response to the OP's argument:

Yep, and the majority of states in all of human history have been oppresive, murderous affairs. Obviously this is optimal.

 

 

Optimal does not require a moral judgement only that it is superior to all other viable alternatives. Things could be much worse in the absence of government.

Indeed - why should I not? BTW, this massively undercuts the case for a minimal state, as historically it has only existed for a glimpse of time. Not very sound reasoning, You might want to say government is important to any society, and I would not disagree with that, but I do not see why the State is the only form of government that makes sense, or indeed one that does at all...

-Jon