I don't see the state as being fundamentally other than the people that compose it. Unfortunately we are untrustworthy arseholes who callously disregard each others' interests.

Do you feel like your State is your friend, or is it an interest-pursuing machine which might callously disregard your interests? — Bitter Crank

I feel for the most part the Social Democratic Republic of Austria's government makes an effort to work in the public's interest.

Indeed there are things that are than just 'appear to be self-serving' done by politicians, they are self-serving, but this negative does not negate the positives.

I do agree with unenlightened:

I don't see the state as being fundamentally other than the people that compose it. — unenlightened

At the moment we have a large section of the population living and acting under fear. Not just as of this past weekend, but for the better part of the past 12 years. In spite of this fear, the government has managed not to succumb to all of these fears and has been able to maintain the principles of a social democratic process.

It is far from perfect, but some progress is being made.

I'm not really upset with Austria and how is presents itself worldwide. Indeed there are (from my perspective) self-serving and embarrassing moments...

... but I'm in a very fortunate position. I am not Austrian. I have lived here for more than 2 decades, but I can use that 'escape' if needed.

I am American, but since I have not lived there for more than 2 decades, I do use that 'escape' all of the time. Considering how America has developed over the past 20+ years... it's nice to be able to distance myself from that mess and do so in a legitimate manner.

As far as the USA is concerned... 'I'm Austrian'..

... In the same manner that Bill Maher is 'Swiss'.



Meow!

GREG

I do agree with unenlightened:
I don't see the state as being fundamentally other than the people that compose it.
— unenlightened — Mayor of Simpleton

I think the state can be, and may/might/sometimes/often is different than the people who compose it.

For instance, was Austria at it's antisemitic worst merely a composite of its population, OR was the State of Austria different than a composite of Austrians?

The United States (as it is perceived here, in the US, or as it is perceived elsewhere) isn't just a composite of 320 million people. The various branches of the US Government (the Dept. of Defense, for instance, vs. the Institutes of Health; the Energy Dept. vs. the Library of Congress; the CIA and all of the intelligence establishment, vs. the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development) all pursue various policies which are not all coordinated. There are among the 320 million people, numerous and quite different demographics that don't overlap and don't have the same values and interests.

I think of the state as an entity which is more than the sum of its parts. There are other ways to organize large-scale society than through a state. The modern state is a relatively new phenomena, some odd 400 years or so. http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/gov207hist_mod_state.htm

I don't mean to advocate for "the way things were", but only to point out that the state is a peculiar entity, a way of organizing that one does not need, but can abolish (without, thereby, abolishing the people that make up the state -- at least in theory) (just wanted to tag you @unenlightened bc. I think my response differs because I think of states differently)

And, so I would say, the abolition of the state is not a bad priority to hold. While I think there are better and worse states (because in politics you can't reason very well without a notion of better and worse), I don't believe that the state is the best possible manner of organizing people. I would prefer to abolish borders. I would prefer to abolish capitalism, which the state props up.

Which is pretty much how I'd answer your question -- the state is a menace to me and mine, because the US is concerned primarily with those who own the means of production. We can make things better(for us, of course), but the fundamental laws of the land -- private property and representative politics -- are opposed to working class interests.

I suppose I would say that it's not possible to have a friendly state, and that any attitudes of friendliness are out of place in assessing ones state. It's a collection of interests -- and it's goodness or badness is relative to what extent it represents your interests. It's not a universal-morality-machine, by any means, where we all look out for one another. That's just not the nature of state-centric politics. And as soon as it is then we really do become nationalists, which is just creepy in my opinion.

For instance, was Austria at it's antisemitic worst merely a composite of its population, OR was the State of Austria different than a composite of Austrians? — Bitter Crank

I would like to say that the Austrian people were different than the state, but there was a large section of the population at that time who were indeed Anti-Semitic. Probably not the majority of Austrians, but there were certainly more of them around at that time.

Then again...

... one thing to keep in mind was that Austria was occupied and at that time was part of Nazi Germany and not really under sovereign rule.

There are among the 320 million people, numerous and quite different demographics that don't overlap and don't have the same values and interests. — Bitter Crank

My question here would be does having different values or interests from someone else equate having a disregard for values and interests of someone else?

I don't think so.

American governments are elected by the people. Including those who chose not to vote.

Perhaps having a disregard in participating in this election process by the people to serve the people reflects something manifest in the USA and about elected officials having disregard for representing the people that have elected them to serve the people; thus the government simply reflects the common disregard of the common man?

Meow!

GREG

Ireland. Mostly harmless.

States have interests, they don't have friends. States are not virtuous. They can't be evaluated like persons.

States pursue interests. 75 years ago the US declared that controlling ME oil was a point of national policy NOT because arabs were inferior, or that we were entitled to it, or that it was our destiny, or anything like that. Controlling who had access to the oil and who didn't was in the national interest as understood by the Roosevelt (and subsequent) administrations. Nations that embark on empire (Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Holland, Belgium, etc. did so because it was in their national interest.

The State's interest may even conflict with what citizens perceive as their interests. A state may go to war when it's population has no interest in the war. The state may wish to know what is passing through the telecommunication systems, but the citizens may wish to have their totally innocuous conversations and emails remain strictly confidential.

The policy of a given state may be appalling to its own people, and to people in other states, and whether the state pursues its policies openly without misrepresentation or does it with obfuscation, is a matter of state craft. (Though, obfuscation may cause its own or other people to doubt the state's intention all the more.)

It seems like a different scale has to be used for measuring states behavior and measuring individual behavior.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (or egalité, liberté, and fraternité--pick your home town slogan) may not mean much to those who act as the state. So, whatever goal the US was pursuing in Iraq, it certainly was not Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness for the Iraqis. Their happiness just didn't figure in. Other States behave in exactly the same way.

In a way, citizens of a State are observers of State Theater. They may be paying for the production, but they are definitely not in control of it.

Ireland. Mostly harmless. — Baden

Maybe.

Damn...no sugar coating that truth! ;)

That anti guv'mint attitude seems very strong in the USA. A lot of people seem to think 'they' are the enemy, and that it is up to 'us' to 'keep ourselves strong' - it's that mentality which is behind a lot of the gun lunacy lobby. Here in Australia it's a different kind of vibe, we don't take institutions all that seriously, but I don't regard government as an enemy or a threat.

Do you feel like your State is your friend, or is it an interest-pursuing machine which might callously disregard your interests? — Bitter Crank

I do believe that my state of Arizona operates in my best interest when it comes to showing it's opinion to the Nation as a whole.
However, within my state it is a constant struggle to get our state representatives to 'get the message' and uphold the rights, that we as a state, have voted into law. First it was the push for medical cannabis being legalized in our state that was my mission. Now that we have achieved that law on a state level, we need to hold our ground when it comes to the battle between the Feds and the States rights.
Then my efforts were putting into getting the homeless Veterans into safe housing and am a Patient Advocate for Veterans, as well as Seniors. Yes, I am a Rottweiler on a very short leash~ 8-) Just let me know whose rights are not being respected and in front of them I will stand.
After that came the Occupy Phoenix movement and we protested the clear abuse of the state laws by those in office. It didn't change anything in Phoenix but it changed something within me. As we, the protesters were restricted to the sidewalk, there was a first line of clearly armed people on the street, standing shoulder to shoulder, they were my Veterans. Directly behind the Veterans, was a line of Phoenix Police officers in riot gear. I asked the Veteran why he was facing us with firearms when the Police were clearly present and his words shook me to the core then and they are rattling me just by typing them now.
He said "I am here to protect you" I looked at him quizickly and asked "From whom?" and he motioned to the men and women in black behind him. I asked if he meant the police? He said "Absolutely."
I asked him if I could give him a hug, to thank him for all he did for us as a soldier and for placing himself between me and the state, he said yes, so I hugged him tightly and Thanked him. His position confirmed for me, everything that those around me have been saying for years.
Finally, this past year the State trampled on a neighbors personal rights to a degree that went nationwide. Entering her home with a video photographer, WITHOUT a Warrant and sabotaging this woman's life repeatedly, without mercy. The saddest part of this experience was that she was a Phoenix Police officer for 30+ years, she was one of their own. She is sick, she needed an intervention but in trying to deal with a mentally ill person and the law, I saw the inside of the system, the political implications, the need and ugly hunger to grab that feather, to put in the controllers hat. It is sickening to think about how many other peoples lives are destroyed the way they have hers.

Maybe. — Bitter Crank

Well, apart from the recent furore over the surprisingly emotive topic of water charges not much in the way of menacing going on that I know of. The exception would be if you are a woman who wants an abortion...

I think of the state as an entity which is more than the sum of its parts. — Moliere

It's a collection of interests -- and it's goodness or badness is relative to what extent it represents your interests. — Moliere

You disagree - but you agree? I say that to the extent that people care about each others' interests, they will have a good state, and to the extent that they care only about their own, they will have a bad state. To measure the goodness of the state according to one's own interests is inherently despotic.

Do you feel like your State is your friend, or is it an interest-pursuing machine which might callously disregard your interests? — Bitter Crank

Given that I'm from the UK, and that David Cameron and his Conservative Party are in government, and have been since 2010, and will be until at least 2020 - no, I don't feel like the State (i.e. the government) is my friend. I feel more like it's an interest-pursuing machine which might callously disregard my interests. My feelings would likely move towards the other direction if Labour, under Jeremy Corbin, or the Green Party, were in government.

You disagree - but you agree? — unenlightened

:D

That's probably the best way of putting it. Though the following makes a difference to my mind so maybe I don't disagree after all. I may just be being pedantic. I do see the state as being other from the people that compose it, at least -- I'm not sure if it's fundamentally other, but it seems quite different from people to me. But that wouldn't make any difference here:

I say that to the extent that people care about each others' interests, they will have a good state, and to the extent that they care only about their own, they will have a bad state. To measure the goodness of the state according to one's own interests is inherently despotic. — unenlightened

because you're stating what makes a state good, not what makes a state a state.

I would say that the state is inherently despotic. There's not quite such a thing as a good state -- there are better states and worse states, but no good states simpliciter. And if you do not measure the betterness of the state with respect to your interests then you won't get much out of it. I think this has to do with the nature of states, though, and not necessarily the nature of people.

((EDIT: Just to be clear -- I am very much in line with the thinking of Rousseau. Though I do not share his views on human nature -- I don't think people are inherently good in nature, or that goodness springs from sympathy -- I also believe that our societies structure who we are, and that the state is a part of society which structures us to be despotic. ))

To measure the goodness of the state according to one's own interests is inherently despotic. — unenlightened

I wouldn't describe that as "inherently despotic", although I would say that it is, in a sense, misguided. It's misguided in the sense that a state's function isn't to meet the interests of a single individual. But it's also sensible to judge the worth of a state based upon whether or not - or to what extent - it accords with one's interests. As @Moliere said, if you don't measure the betterness of the state with respect to your interests, then you won't get much out of it.

I agree with this. I don't mean my interests in the sense that Moliere wants cake and so the state shall supply Moliere with cake. I mean collective interests -- my people's interests, of which I am a part and therefore will benefit personally, but not Moliere's desire for cake.

States don't need to be our friends. In fact, their whole purpose is to be the opposite: the bitter enemies of our baser natures. It would never occur to human beings to create something like a state if they could settle disputes and live in harmony with one another on their own. As such, the state is an evil, but a necessary one for civil society to survive, however much it may seem to oppose it at times.

But surely something like 'the state' had to emerge with agriculture and animal husbandry. Why? Because that required pooling of resources and cooperative effort. During the settlement of Australia and New Zealand, the English recognized the Maori state because they had villages and agriculture, and accordingly signed a treaty with them in 1842' whereas they designated Australila 'terra nullus', an empty land, because the Aboriginals were nomadic hunter-gatherers that had no buildings or agriculture (a view that was overturned by the courts eventually but serves to make the point.)

As long as you have common property and social services, I don't see how you can possibly avoid having a state organisation. Indeed I think the real hardcore libertarian anti-government view is pretty hard to distinguish from anarchism.

But if there are other ways to organize the pooling of resources and cooperative effort then "the state" is not some foregone conclusion. It's not like there's a historical hierarchy where first we had the tribe, then the city, then the empire, then the church, then the kingdom, and then the state. Culture doesn't function in this manner. Culture works more along the lines of history than along the lines of a natural science. The old positivists -- the ones from the 1800's, I mean, who were sociologists -- had such notions, but they just don't work. All you end up doing is looking at cultures along a developmental axis which, surprise, puts your own culture at the top of the hierarchy. But this is arbitrary -- because, surely, using the same principles, another culture can do the same, and it is our culture which is then still trying to develop towards their culture. But what we see are many cultures co-existing, many forms of organization, and neither leading to the other.

"States do not have friends, they have interests" mostly describes state to state relationships. Even the UK and the US are not "friends" when it comes to state to state interaction. The United Kingdom has interests that are its business to pursue, and so does the United States. That's all. If those interests are the same, then all is well. If not, then not. The USSR and the USA could pursue a few common interests, even though our interests were decidedly not the same. For instance, both the USSR and the USA were interested in avoiding mutual assured destruction.

If France decides to bomb Syria, it is because it is pursuing its interests there. States don't get pissed off and decide to beat the shit out of somebody. That is people acting like people. When people act as states, they are cold.

People have relationships wherein friendship, hatred, annoyance, affection, amusement, and so on come into play. Ambassadors strive to cooly represent the interests of their nation, but as people they feel all sorts of things about the people they interact with. An ambassador may loathe the officials he has to deal with, but he is there only to represent his nations interests.

Sorry for beating the thing into the ground.

But if there are other ways to organize the pooling of resources and cooperative effort then "the state" is not some foregone conclusion. It's not like there's a historical hierarchy where first we had the tribe, then the city, then the empire, then the church, then the kingdom, and then the state. Culture doesn't function in this manner. Culture works more along the lines of history than along the lines of a natural science.

Moliere

But were there any agrarian or pre-industrial cultures that didn't have some form of rulership, (generally tribal monarchies, to begin with)? The formation of agriculture and animal husbandry, for example, in the 'Fertile Crescent', which is regarded as the 'birthplace of civilization', is what gave rise to the cuniform script, which was devised principally so people could keep track of wheat and cattle. What was involved in establishing cattle yards and shared water resources, was one of the factors that enabled the success of this culture, which precisely marked the transition from hunter-gatherer/nomadic culture to agrarian settlements. Likewise the emergence of the early Chinese states was intimately bound up with the establishment of written records and the emergence of the associated mandarin class. So in those you can see the prototype of the organs of state, with scribes and books of accounts, and presumably those responsible for keeping tally. If that is not the early form of a state, what is it?

I would say they are unique to their time and place, rather than being states. I agree that human beings are always organized into some form of rulership. As Aristotle says, man is the political animal. I'm just questioning the state form of rulership as some kind of inevitability -- and classifying it as one of the kinds of rulership, rather than as some advanced form of rulership to which all other larger-scale organizations gravitate towards, and certainly rather than the final form of human social organization.

I wouldn't say that writing is the basis of state-hood, either. I wouldn't pin bureaucracy and records as the defining feature of states as much as I would pin geographic boundaries, cultural hegemony, and legitimated violence.

I'd call a settlement a settlement, rather than a state. Perhaps the beginning of a city. I am not familiar enough with the history of China to comment, to be honest.

The features defining The State and distinguishing it from Family, Band, Village, City, Church, and Kingdom, are several.

• The Family, of course, is the fundamental unit of any population -- the reproducing core of kinship in all societies.
• The Band (of hunters, illegal pot growers, etc.) is a very small association, may be long lasting, may be temporary. Features trust and kinship.
• The Village is generally permanent, is generally self-governed, features mutual benefit and trust rather than kinship.
• The City is permanent, governed, and features cooperation and compliance rather than trust, kinship.
• The Kingdom is permanent, governs, demands allegiance as well as compliance, and is personified in the King. The King is King because he possesses real economic and military power and skill in using it (usually; not always).
• The Church is organized like a Kingdom, except that the divine head of a religious body is never present. Personifying God in his stead are archbishops and bishops. The priests serve as Knights, monks and nuns are the troops, and the laity (the bottom of the ecclesial pyramid) are the farmland. The institution of the church demands obedience, support, fealty, love, loyalty, and so on.
• The sovereign State differs from the Kingdom in that there is no person incarnating the State. The state is normally a secular organization and has no divine origin myth. The state declares itself. The State is as powerful as the citizens wish to make it. States demand compliance, support, loyalty, and cooperation.

EDIT

The state corporation is the most modern of institutions, and the most secular as well.

The point I'm simply making is that unless you're nomadic hunter-gatherers, there will be some form of state organisation. And as simple as that point is, it's a fact that a lot of the anti-guv'mint ideologues don't seem to grasp. But then, perhaps they actually want to return to that pure darwinian struggle of clan v clan. If you look at Republican politics, it's not a stretch.

But they are correct on that point, at least. The hope, from their perspective, is an abolishment of the state in favor of corporate ownership of the world. They go so far as to characterize governments as corporations. But this totalizing viewpoint is what I'm trying to shrink -- so that we can see that the state is not inevitable, or even inevitable so long as we discount nomadic societies. There are many forms of society aside from these two. I'd go along with @Bitter Crank's list above. And there can be others that have yet to exist, too.

I don't endorse right-wing abolishment of the state by any stretch. But I certainly don't think, despite their beliefs, the state is the only thing keeping us from social darwinism. Heck, we see clan v. clan type organizations develop within the state.

Heck, we see clan v. clan type organizations develop within the state. — Moliere

Right. Everything from family to church (except kingdoms) exists within the state, as well as being developmental stages over the long run. (Developmental in that bands came before villages, villages before cities. Religion of some sort preceded (I'm guessing) religious institutions.

Hmmmm... I didn't include corporations. The corporation is really recent, unless you classify monasteries as a sort of corporation. They were, in a way.

But the modern corporation belongs to the modern era (last 3 or 4 hundred years). The corporation can include the village (the company town) but it hasn't quite gotten to the point of subsuming cities, and merciful god, they won't get to the point of subsuming states. Though, that might not be that far away. (Or... have they done that already?)

The animosity toward "the state" goes back a ways. The American South had a negative view of the state from the get go. (This animosity is enshrined in the US Constitution.) The plantation mentality (an early company town arrangement) viewed the colony government (like, Georgia) in a somewhat unfriendly way. When colonies became states, they viewed the Federal government in an unfriendly way.

Southern states built railroads, just like northern states did, but they built them only within their state boundary. In the north railroads were built across state boundaries as commerce dictated. It wasn't exactly stupidity that limited their railroading vision, it was parochialism. Why should Georgia do anything to help South Carolina? If the railroad runs from my plantation to the docks, that's far enough.

A more thorough libertarian political scheme would reduce state functions to exterior defense, and a couple of other functions--nothing more than absolutely necessary. The rest (and the rest is a lot) either is individual responsibility or can be handled by corporations. A legal system? Everyone can get justice from binding arbitration companies. Prisons? We've got private prisons already. Roads? Utilities? Schools? Hospitals? We've got that covered by free enterprise already. Just dump the parasitic public services operated by guv'mint. Welfare? That goes into the list of things that rhymes with bucket list. (Thanks, Barack, for that one.)

I don't think your list is conclusive. I'm not sure what a conclusive list would look like, and by what I'm trying to argue at least, I would say that such a list would have to be reformed with the passing of history. But it's a good enough start to highlight that the state isn't the only way to organize people on a large scale, and without the state all we have is nomadic tribes.

Also, there are far-right political positions which disagree with libertarianism, even, and dream of a post-state world wherein everything is organized along corporate lines. I certainly disagree with such dreams, but that doesn't negate their existence (or the fact that, at least at this point in time, corporate structure heavily relies upon states, moreso than they'd like to admit ;) )

As Marx said, the State is a committee to organize the affairs of the Bourgeoisie.

I guess one could imagine an arrangement where corporations entirely replaced the state. Though, without a state to incorporate or regulate them, I think we would have arrived at an earlier time where large enterprises started out as brigands and would grow by conquering their competitors, until they got big enough to dominate their field (whatever that was... robots, food, mining, medical parts...) It would be a sort of latter day medievalism, the corporation being like fiefdoms, dukedoms, and kingdoms.

The corporation would, like the modern state, be self-anointing. I am not suggesting these self-anointed corporations would be a state, however. The corporation exists for itself, not for its citizens, like the state (supposedly) does. I'm guessing that a world in which corporations had succeeded the states would not be altogether unpleasant, though I don't have a lot of confidence in that guess. Wherever the sovereign corporation achieved monopoly status, the quality of goods and services would probably fall. Your preferred brand of baked beans and peanut butter might still be good, or they might be thoroughly degraded.