Are the state and government one and the same? Entirely different?
Good question. I often find myself using them interchangeably.
I think the state is the apparatus, the machinery if you will; the court system, the police, the army. The State also encompasses the government, but this government (in a democracy) must compete for control of the State's machinery. In a 'communist' state, the political, judicial and military spheres all merge into one another to the point where they are indistinguishable.
So I think the government is a "sub-set" of the State.
Irish Liberty Forum
One reason I bring up the question is because on LewRockwell.com, it says Anti-State, but not Anti-Government.
ViennaSausage: Are the state and government one and the same? Entirely different?
Among libertarians, they are often used interchangeably. But Albert Jay Nock made a distinction between voluntary government and the state.
In the international relations field and I think maybe in Europe, government is often used to refer to a particular administration.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
I find pictures speak louder than words
The State:
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: Among libertarians, they are often used interchangeably. But Albert Jay Nock made a distinction between voluntary government and the state.
Good point - and at least one libertarian organization advocates what it calls "self-government": http://www.theadvocates.org/
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
I use government to refer to the market set up of private courts, police, law, ect. because there is no other way to describe it without muddying it up. However it is much easier to use gov't when trying to make an argument against the State.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
The state is a very modern institution invented in France in the early renaissance which consists of a permanent civil service tied to the land and exercising the monopoly of power upon it in the name of some sovereign, the King of France originally, and now the French Republic. The greatest innovation the state brought about was the power to change the sovereign it served.
A government, on the other hand, is judiciary power over some people, not necessarily a fixed territory. Nomadic tribes have governments, but they are not states. Generally speaking when a ruler dies, his government dies with him and a new one has to be re-established, which is why there are usually hierarchies of rulers involved in large empires. Medieval Europe was structured hierarchically for this very reason.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger: The state is a very modern institution invented in France in the early renaissance which consists of a permanent civil service tied to the land and exercising the monopoly of power upon it in the name of some sovereign, the King of France originally, and now the French Republic. The greatest innovation the state brought about was the power to change the sovereign it served. A government, on the other hand, is judiciary power over some people, not necessarily a fixed territory. Nomadic tribes have governments, but they are not states. Generally speaking when a ruler dies, his government dies with him and a new one has to be re-established, which is why there are usually hierarchies of rulers involved in large empires. Medieval Europe was structured hierarchically for this very reason.
This is interesting; would you say regimes in Mediaeval Europe may have had overlapping jurisdictions and/or voluntary entry/secession? (except for serfs, of course)
"Nolite confidere in principibus"
~ Psalm 146:3
There was obviously overlapping jurisdictions, but secession was difficult, and traditional claims ruled.
The State includes the government, but it includes many others as well.
There's also the etymological issue - "government" comes from a word which means "to steer". The title of governor was first applied to the helmsman of a ship. So while that does imply something similar to government as we know it, it doesn't necessarily mean the state.
I refer to government as a system of law and whatever insitutions are there to enforce it. That is not incompatible with the NAP and free-market defense and adjudication.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
The state is a very modern institution invented in France in the early renaissance which consists of a permanent civil service tied to the land and exercising the monopoly of power upon it in the name of some sovereign, the King of France originally, and now the French Republic. The greatest innovation the state brought about was the power to change the sovereign it served. A government, on the other hand, is judiciary power over some people, not necessarily a fixed territory. Nomadic tribes have governments, but they are not states. Generally speaking when a ruler dies, his government dies with him and a new one has to be re-established, which is why there are usually hierarchies of rulers involved in large empires. Medieval Europe was structured hierarchically for this very reason.
The idea that the state didn't exist prior to the renaissance is an idea that I find to be absolutely absurd. I really don't understand it and it bothers me. As far as I know, states have existed in various forms for thousands of years. If your argument is in referance to the democratic state, then it makes some sense, but if we are talking about states in general then it makes no sense whatsoever. It seems ridiculous to me to act as if history prior to the renaissance was dominantly anarchic, when almost all that I see are the stories of past statist societies. To my knowledge, there were plenty and plenty of rulers prior to this time period. History appears full of examples of quite brutal rulership to me. I fear that this viewpoint romantisizes past societies as if they were anarchic when they truly weren't. The idea that the world was essentially anarchic until democracy began to form strikes me as beyond ridiculous.
Brainpolice:The idea that the state didn't exist prior to the renaissance is an idea that I find to be absolutely absurd. I really don't understand it and it bothers me. As far as I know, states have existed in various forms for thousands of years.
Governments have, not states. Read more carefully before getting worked up.
Stranger: Brainpolice:The idea that the state didn't exist prior to the renaissance is an idea that I find to be absolutely absurd. I really don't understand it and it bothers me. As far as I know, states have existed in various forms for thousands of years. Governments have, not states. Read more carefully before getting worked up.
No, I see plenty of states from Rome and Egypt onwards (and even prior to them). If you wish to imply that the world before the renaissance was anarchic, it's a ridiculous argument by all accounts and it alarms me that people can constitute "anarchists" who seem to think that the various forms of rulership prior to towards the end of the middle ages is somehow legitimate and compatible with liberty in any way whatsoever. Your argument only applies to democratic states or "the modern state", but not the state as such. In either case, it seems obvious to me that this viewpoint is for the purpose of romantisizing pre-renaissance Europe.
State-like entities have certainly existed for most of human history. Whether or not they can be called "states" is a semantic issue. The present-day nation-state is a recent phemomena, but states and quasi-states have existed in different forms for millenia.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: Stranger: Brainpolice:The idea that the state didn't exist prior to the renaissance is an idea that I find to be absolutely absurd. I really don't understand it and it bothers me. As far as I know, states have existed in various forms for thousands of years. Governments have, not states. Read more carefully before getting worked up. State-like entities have certainly existed for most of human history. Whether or not they can be called "states" is a semantic issue. The present-day nation-state is a recent phemomena, but states and quasi-states have existed in different forms for millenia.
Exactly. City-states have existed for millenia, and empire states have existed for millenia as well. I don't understand how one can brush off all of the rulership that had taken place prior to the renaissance as somehow being anarchic and consequentially legitimate. That alarms me.
Brainpolice:No, I see plenty of states from Rome and Egypt onwards (and even prior to them). If you wish to imply that the world before the renaissance was anarchic,
I have implied no such thing, you have not read a word of what I have said.
Stranger: Brainpolice:No, I see plenty of states from Rome and Egypt onwards (and even prior to them). If you wish to imply that the world before the renaissance was anarchic, I have implied no such thing, you have not read a word of what I have said.
I have read every word of what you've said and proceeded to draw out the logical implications. If, as you say, the state was invented in the renaissance, then it logically follows that prior to this period the world was anarchic. I'm not setting up a straw man, merely drawing out the logical implications of your own statements.
Brainpolice:I have read every word of what you've said and proceeded to draw out the logical implications. If, as you say, the state was invented in the renaissance, then it logically follows that prior to this period the world was anarchic. I'm not setting up a straw man, merely drawing out the logical implications of your own statements.
Reading is more than spelling out words.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap