Political Systems and Nation States

[Anonymouse]

I recently finished two excellent readings about the nature of political systems and nations. One was "The Myth of Nations" by Patrick Geary who is a professor at UCLA, and the other "Anarchism", by Daniel Guerin; both excellent readings. Throughout my course in reading these books alot of the fundamental ideas of nations and political ideas came into question, and I always thought of myself as more of a collectivist with regard to nations than anything else but this certainly erects some questions that quakes my views.

I have come to the conclusion that the State relies on its existence in acts of subterfuge and war. It must lie and pacify its citizens and make them have faith in the system in order for it to succeed. While people like the revolutionary forefathers of America and other people yapping about "soverign nation", the term itself contains its own negation. How can a people be sovereign by any means if they are a nation? The idea of being a nation in itself suggests that you are a slave to the system. You don't have to believe it but you are limited by the State.

The means in which the State achieves this ability to gull most of its citizenry is via the educational system and the press. You may view this as some "cynical outlook" or "conspiratorial" or the ramblings of a "nut" or what have you, but a deep questioning of your beliefs and the system will only show how dependent you are on it.

So thus it would not be in the interest of those who profit from Statism to have people question the State or the mechanics of it. War is the fundamental nature of every political ideology. Without war it cannot exist or survive. The State is really institutionalize violence that people have been conditioned to revere. The state operates on the basis of the most inhumane premises. Behaviors that we insist upon criminalizing if done by private parties are perfectly okay for the State. Why?

[surferarmo]

Well, I would argue that even those who are so called "controllers" are actually bound by the system themselves. I work at the headquarters, and I dont see people saying, "lets control the masses by war." I dont believe they are consciously doing it, but I do agree that we are bound by the state all the same. The controllers and the controlled are all bound by eachother. I belive the nation does control us, but I believe we need it. It almost gives us purpose and something to look forward to.

This concept goes inline with the Leviathan theory. I forget if it was by Thomas Hobbes, or John Locke, but it is attributed to one of those two. The people give their rights to a "leviathan" a greater being, one that they believe in, so that the leviathan can handle the affairs of the people. It all comes down to security. That is what people want. Security to do as they please.

[omniscient]

hey anon i know that no one has gone off topic on this one yet but this is more of a political thread and you should post it in the politics forum. You know that in this forum no one is gonna reply or maybe one or two at the most. its gonna go off topic as usual and its gonna have nothing to do with this. but the funny thing is, the political forum is just as bad as this one lol. they insult eachother more and they sound more serious. so basically this is a lost cause.

[sSsflamesSs]

If everyone did what they pleased, then we would have anarchy. In order for the state to exist, it is imperative for the state to have authority over its citizens. This translates into the state enforcing certain laws that, whether you like it or not, cut down on your freedom. No citizen in a state is truly free.

It's just like mom and dad. They keep you boxed in inside your room trying to protect you from the outside world. They might smoke, but tell you not to smoke. They might have other habits that they don't want you to engage in. The state is the authority figure for its citizens just like the parents are the authority figure for their child.

[Anonymouse]

Well, I would argue that even those who are so called "controllers" are actually bound by the system themselves. I work at the headquarters, and I dont see people saying, "lets control the masses by war." I dont believe they are consciously doing it, but I do agree that we are bound by the state all the same. The controllers and the controlled are all bound by eachother. I belive the nation does control us, but I believe we need it. It almost gives us purpose and something to look forward to.

This concept goes inline with the Leviathan theory. I forget if it was by Thomas Hobbes, or John Locke, but it is attributed to one of those two. The people give their rights to a "leviathan" a greater being, one that they believe in, so that the leviathan can handle the affairs of the people. It all comes down to security. That is what people want. Security to do as they please.

I can understand what you're saying. The people at your headquarters might not want to "control" because they aren't about control since they aren't the true creators and wielders of power.

You must remember that in all societies exists a pyramidal hierarchy. There was a time that people created the system we live in. That time was the Enlightenment. The names of the thinkers you refer to all came out of the Enlightenment as well. It is then that the idea of "nations" and every '-ism' you can think of came into existence. So someone had to have created it.

[Anonymouse]

If everyone did what they pleased, then we would have anarchy. In order for the state to exist, it is imperative for the state to have authority over its citizens. This translates into the state enforcing certain laws that, whether you like it or not, cut down on your freedom. No citizen in a state is truly free.

It's just like mom and dad. They keep you boxed in inside your room trying to protect you from the outside world. They might smoke, but tell you not to smoke. They might have other habits that they don't want you to engage in. The state is the authority figure for its citizens just like the parents are the authority figure for their child.

I'm perfectly aware there exists no absolut definition of "freedom" just like there is no absolute definition of "equality". Such things are ideas.

However it is also a popular misconception to regard anything contrary to the State as resulting in Anarcy. In fact the book "Anarchism" did a brilliant job of seperating fact from fiction, and myths from realities about anarchism. Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. In fact in latter times the word 'libertarian' has become interchangeable with 'anarchism'. There is individual anarchism or social anarchism and that is essentially where my focus is, individual anarchism.

So my initial question was, why do we okay the State to behave in manners for which we criminalize individuals? As Max Stirner so eloquently put it, "The State has always one purpose: to limit, control, subordinate the individual and subject him to the general purpose...Through its censorship, its supervision, and its police the State tries to obstruct all free activity and sees this repression as its duty, because the instinct of self-preservation demands it. The State does not permit me to use my thoughts to their full value and communicate them to other men...unless they are its own...Otherwise it shuts me up."

[omniscient]

Re: Political Systems and Nation States

I recently finished two excellent readings about the nature of political systems and nations. One was "The Myth of Nations" by Patrick Geary who is a professor at UCLA, and the other "Anarchism", by Daniel Guerin; both excellent readings. Throughout my course in reading these books alot of the fundamental ideas of nations and political ideas came into question, and I always thought of myself as more of a collectivist with regard to nations than anything else but this certainly erects some questions that quakes my views.

I have come to the conclusion that the State relies on its existence in acts of subterfuge and war. It must lie and pacify its citizens and make them have faith in the system in order for it to succeed. While people like the revolutionary forefathers of America and other people yapping about "soverign nation", the term itself contains its own negation. How can a people be sovereign by any means if they are a nation? The idea of being a nation in itself suggests that you are a slave to the system. You don't have to believe it but you are limited by the State.

The means in which the State achieves this ability to gull most of its citizenry is via the educational system and the press. You may view this as some "cynical outlook" or "conspiratorial" or the ramblings of a "nut" or what have you, but a deep questioning of your beliefs and the system will only show how dependent you are on it.

So thus it would not be in the interest of those who profit from Statism to have people question the State or the mechanics of it. War is the fundamental nature of every political ideology. Without war it cannot exist or survive. The State is really institutionalize violence that people have been conditioned to revere. The state operates on the basis of the most inhumane premises. Behaviors that we insist upon criminalizing if done by private parties are perfectly okay for the State. Why?

why ask why anon, thats what they want you to say. thats how our system works. thats why no one really questions it. i wouldnt say that youre a nut rambling about something that cant be fixed but the statements that you are making; are they from you asking the question why? or is it something one of the two authors wrote and THEY are asking that question? hope i didnt lose you

[omniscient]

because the question youre asking has no answer. youre right we are slaves and the govt. can do whatever they please, so dont ask why. we, the people have always thought theres a lot of things wrong with the govt. including a lot of corruption on the side, but can we do anything about it, NO, because we are slaves to them. and i wouldnt necessarily call it slaves. but it could get to that point if we wanted to let it go there.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Political Systems and Nation States

I recently finished two excellent readings about the nature of political systems and nations. One was "The Myth of Nations" by Patrick Geary who is a professor at UCLA, and the other "Anarchism", by Daniel Guerin; both excellent readings. Throughout my course in reading these books alot of the fundamental ideas of nations and political ideas came into question, and I always thought of myself as more of a collectivist with regard to nations than anything else but this certainly erects some questions that quakes my views.

I have come to the conclusion that the State relies on its existence in acts of subterfuge and war. It must lie and pacify its citizens and make them have faith in the system in order for it to succeed. While people like the revolutionary forefathers of America and other people yapping about "soverign nation", the term itself contains its own negation. How can a people be sovereign by any means if they are a nation? The idea of being a nation in itself suggests that you are a slave to the system. You don't have to believe it but you are limited by the State.

The means in which the State achieves this ability to gull most of its citizenry is via the educational system and the press. You may view this as some "cynical outlook" or "conspiratorial" or the ramblings of a "nut" or what have you, but a deep questioning of your beliefs and the system will only show how dependent you are on it.

So thus it would not be in the interest of those who profit from Statism to have people question the State or the mechanics of it. War is the fundamental nature of every political ideology. Without war it cannot exist or survive. The State is really institutionalize violence that people have been conditioned to revere. The state operates on the basis of the most inhumane premises. Behaviors that we insist upon criminalizing if done by private parties are perfectly okay for the State. Why?

why ask why anon, thats what they want you to say. thats how our system works. thats why no one really questions it. i wouldnt say that youre a nut rambling about something that cant be fixed but the statements that you are making; are they from you asking the question why? or is it something one of the two authors wrote and THEY are asking that question? hope i didnt lose you

The books didn't really delve into the whys, just tried to give a synopsis of their theses, one being Anarchism, and the other of nations being artificial creations.

You cannot help but think of how the government tries to persecute those who commit the same crimes the government commits on an individual scale. When someone conspires against the government it is treason, yet it is perfectly okay for one government to send spies to conspire against another government. Do you see where this line of thinking goes? It presents a very complex dilemma for people who have alot of faith in the system and it is disheartening for most.

I believe the answer I am looking for lies somewhere in the area of 'fear'.

[surferarmo]

Well, I would argue that even those who are so called "controllers" are actually bound by the system themselves. I work at the headquarters, and I dont see people saying, "lets control the masses by war." I dont believe they are consciously doing it, but I do agree that we are bound by the state all the same. The controllers and the controlled are all bound by eachother. I belive the nation does control us, but I believe we need it. It almost gives us purpose and something to look forward to.

This concept goes inline with the Leviathan theory. I forget if it was by Thomas Hobbes, or John Locke, but it is attributed to one of those two. The people give their rights to a "leviathan" a greater being, one that they believe in, so that the leviathan can handle the affairs of the people. It all comes down to security. That is what people want. Security to do as they please.

The people at your headquarters might not want to "control" because they aren't about control since they aren't the true creators and wielders of power

Are you suggesting President Bush created this idea of power? It started with the nomads. There was a controlling force. Not one person was in control, but the amount of food at a given time and a given spot was in control. THey were controlled by the avaliability of game animals. We are all controlled by something. When people decided to settle down in houses and start farms, people with more grain became powerful because those with less would starve, and they would probably beg for grain from the man that had the most. One other man got jealous and he killed the man with the most grain so he could have the food, so he could have the power. Then it evolved to now. That is where power started. Not in some room where 5 philosophers made a system of control based on war. No one sat down and concocted this whole plan.

You must remember that in all societies exists a pyramidal hierarchy. There was a time that people created the system we live in. That time was the Enlightenment. The names of the thinkers you refer to all came out of the Enlightenment as well. It is then that the idea of "nations" and every '-ism' you can think of came into existence. So someone had to have created it.

Read above. It evolved. It was always there, it was just realized by philosophers. Nations were created to seperate those with loyalties to the certain grain owners.

I used the nomads as an example, but I took a whole course on them. That is where the role of females and males arose