Howya,
We take the existence of The State to be almost axiomatic nowadays, but
it's important to remember that the modern State - as a social entity - is a
historical offspring of European nation-states - Empires, in fact.
Even more basic than that: The State is essentially the monopoly of
physical force. We talk about 'legitimacy' etc. but it all boils down to the
exclusive use of coercion and violence, and the _threat_ of its use.
Some may object, and point to Welfare/Social Insurance etc., but these can
all be stripped from the State, and it will still be a State. There has
never been a State that does not seek to monopolise the use of coercion,
however.
Someone once said something to the effect that "The State is not Society"
i.e. the cooperation, solidarity and mutual aid between people, is of a
different order than the use of physical force to achieve ends.
When people talk of "Society" and "Culture", especially in regard to MoQ
Levels, I think it is important that we draw a distinction between Social
Solidarity and communication, which is indeed purely Cultural, and the use
and threat of use of physical force for social purposes (i.e. Biological
Means for Social Ends) - or "the soldier and his gun" as Pirsig puts it.
The two are most certainly not synonymous.
Some will also point to "National Defence" or Police protection and
Contract enforcement as a justification for The State, and indeed that is a
very powerful rationale. However, it reminds me of the story about the
millionaire who asks an attractive but annoying socialite if she would
consider sleeping with him for a million dollars.
She thinks about it, and says "Yes".
Then he asks her if she would consider sleeping with him for ten dollars.
"Certainly not!" she exclaims, "what kind of woman do you think I am?"
"Madam," he replies, "we have already established what you are, now we are
just haggling the price..."
The State - at best - is a necessary evil.
War is the wholesale reversion to the Biological Level (to ostensibly
achieve Social Ends), "Politics by other means". The every-day State is
simply the "nice" retail version of this (but as Randolph Bourne said: "War
is the Health of The State").
_The_State_is_not_synonymous_with_"Society"_. This is to totally confuse
Ends with Means. In many ways, it is the antithesis of Society - it is the
failure of Civilization, ritualised into acceptance.
Neither The State, nor even "Society", has an Intellect. Only people have
access to the Intellectual Level. Hence, only people have the ultimate right
of self-defense. States do not have Rights, only People.
The State also collectivises the moral agency of Individuals, and hence
dissolves it. The Conservative mantra that individuals' Freedom of Action
cannot be decoupled from the Responsibility for Actions, is nowhere more
violated than in war.
The Giant, or The State, is like the Golem of old. It is something that we
create to serve us, but can ultimately destroy us. It has no "soul", no
conscience of its own.
The Right of Self Defense of People, is not synonymous with "National
Security". People may have every justification to defend themselves
personally (or even cooperatively), but this is not the same thing as
wholesale collaboration with The State, or abdication of one's personal
moral agency.
Arguing that any State has the so-called "right" to defend itself against
another State, or proto-state force, or any threat, is - at best - choosing
the lesser evil from among two evils.
In MoQ terms: It is at best a Social argument, but certainly not an
Intellectual one.
Good luck,
- Oisín (Pontifex Maximus)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:36 BST