Vyor
My influence grows!
And this is why I will never be a libertarian.
Trump Investigations Thread
- Thread starter Rocinante
- Start date
More like a soldier I'd say. At best, the FBI has no say in how the country is run, but instead just enforces the laws that exist. But it's grown in ambition since.
Because we understand that the state hates freedom and free people in particular? I mean, what did you think the state was, other than a bully that wanted to force it's control onto you?
Really, I invite people to consider this concept: The purpose of a system is what it does. Government constantly retaliates and attacks innocent people who are living slightly abnormal lives, tries to create domestic terrorists, etc. Treat the governmental systems how they treat you.
Anyway, I'll rank how concerned I am about the trump prosecutions right now.
The most scary is easily the NY criminal case. It's the only one that can actually proceed given SCOTUS's stay on the federal cases. Also, an NY jury is bad news, so is an NY state judiciary. The case itself is sorta weak though, as it doesn't have to deal with Jan 6th and it's based on novel legal theories.
Next comes the two federal cases, in DC and Florida, with DC being more scary than Florida because it will likely happen earlier, and has a DC jury pool. But winning the election probably solves this problem, but it causes it's own set of issues (self pardon? Temp resignation under the 25th amendment followed by an acting Pres pardon of the president?). There's a chance that SCOTUS rules for immunity, but I'm kinda skeptical about it legally speaking, and in the future it could cause real problems. Also, I'm not sure that actually applies to the Florida case, as that includes post-presidency actions.
Finally comes the Georgia case. IMO, even if there's a bad ruling for him, Trump can just appeal this to Georgia's Supreme Court and kill it there.
Last edited:
Isn't the Florida case potentially dead due to the Miece lawsuit?
Can you get a link? I can't find what you are referring to.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Something that is given its power by the people and acts as a large collective force to achieve the aims of those that give it power?
So the first problem with your definition is that Russia's a state. So is China. So is North Korea. Are they really given power by their people? I mean technically, if you count the lack of active successful resistance as giving power.
Also, states don't seek to achieve the aims of those that give it power generally (see above), but those in power.
In fact, America isn't a state by your definition. There's a large number of things it acts as a collective to do that most of America is against by polling.
Worse, though, your statement is over inclusive. The Green Bay Packers (which is publicly owned by average people) is arguably a state by your definition. Any major political party definitely is. Any protest movement is.
A state is just a territory over which an organization (called the government) holds a monopoly on force. That's it. There's no promise of goodness.
And America, specifically? I invite you to look at this again:
What does the American state actually do? It teaches your kids to be trans, it doesn't enforce property laws, it actively punishes you for self defense, attempts to punish you if you don't try an experimental vaccine, etc. Does this sound like what the people of America want? Or more like what oligarchs or communists want?
America's government is a mafia that hates you. It's just better caged in than all the other countries governments (for everything bad about America, I can name many worse things about other governments).
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
You were making good points about Vyor's offered definition being inaccurate, but then fucked up even harder with this. The system's purpose is defined by its creators, not its present operators. The present operators working otherwise is them subverting the system, rather than representative of said system's purpose. The purpose can be changed by altering the system, but this requires legislative action that has surprisingly rarely occurred.
The underlying issue is that you have defined corruption out of existence.
Edit: Also, the "monopoly" of force isn't really a thing for the vast majority of history, most modern systems included. Even in the United States, federalization means the vast majority have at least two distinct legitimate users of force. What's important is the plurality of force to bring defectors to heel.
Vyor
My influence grows!
You're an anarchist, not a libertarian.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Like frikking clockwork. If this article had been published just five years ago, the journalist would be cancelled and The Atlantic would be memory holed.
You seem to have missed the point of 'a systems purpose is what it does'. It's a model, allowing for one to examine the system as it is. It's not an actual statement of fact, many systems end up doing completely contrary things.
For example, look at the ACLU. Initially, it's purpose was to defend civil liberties, and it did so. But now it's just an arm of the democratic party, so it really should be treated as such.
Obviously, as a model, you can raise objections like "the system is corrupted" or "that wasn't the original purpose", because the model doesn't show everything. But that's the point of a model: to be useful, it's not supposed to include all of the data. A political map might not include where the mountain ranges are, only showing boarders. Others might not show shipping lanes. That doesn't mean the maps are wrong though, they just don't model everything. As my applied mathematics professor once said "All models are bad, some models are useful." To translate: all models are imperfect. You can still learn stuff from some of them though.
No. Because I know the alternative of anarchy is worse. But I'm damn close.
It's just really important to know what you are accepting when you accept a state's control of you. It's not some kind thing that's going to do things for the common good. It's an evil, but a necessary one. Being blind to this means you will end up accepting their BS later on.
Anyway, do you actually have a good definition of a state? One that doesn't include, say, the Boy Scouts or Doctors without Borders?
Vyor
My influence grows!
Fine, add "and which holds land", happy?
The Boy Scouts of America hold land. They have offices like the National Headquarters and during the National Jamboree they occupy territory, and their influence on that section of the land has the most influence. You'd need to work on your definition of what it means to hold land, at the very least. My definition covers that (has a monopoly on force over such land). Yours doesn't. It's so fundamental to the concept of a state that it really needs to be nailed down.
Again, see mine:
It goes into what the state needs to do over the territory.
Not to mention the many other problems with your definition: It's underinclusive. It doesn't include China, Russia, or the Norks. What makes them a state? They aren't their for any sort of common good, and aren't their because of the citizenry.
Vyor
My influence grows!
No, they lease it from the state and federal governments.
Oh? So a commonwealth government isn't a government or state then?
It very much does include them. Who's in their armies, exactly? Who makes their weapons? Who follows their laws?
They own it, specifically their headquarters. And since you never defined what you mean by "holding land", who's to say a lease doesn't count? You really need a very good definition on what it means to hold land for any definition of a state.
Does it hold a monopoly of force over an area? Possibly as part of a group (i.e. how the commonwealth of MA is part of the US government)?
Does the commonwealth have some centralized body (the organization or government in my definition) which it uses to prevent others from killing people and doing violence inside of it, holding itself out as the only group that should be doing this?
Then it is a state (or at least part of one).
If no centralized control of violence is needed (i.e. locals just helping locals do their self defense, with no great oversight like deputizing etc), then that is an anarchic community or stateless society (see, for example, the Icelandic Commonwealth as an example, which was close to stateless). So not a state, really.
Your definition:
This is your problem. The bolded parts refer to each other. Thus, by substitution, we can get to "...acts as a large collective force to achieve the aims of the people." Which China, the Norks, and Russia tend to fail. Honestly, the US fails as well.
If you swapped it to "... acts as a large collective force to achieve the aims of those in charge of it" or something similar, then you'd be much more correct. But the idea that the nation actually serves the collective will is generally incorrect.
Vyor
My influence grows!
The idea that people have any say over when they die is generally incorrect too.
Sure, so? I didn't say they did? What you included in your definition of a state is the issue.
Look, your definition is currently both overbroad and too narrow. You need a better definition of what it means to hold land, and to stop attributing it a noble purpose which many (I'd say nearly all, the Vatican may be the one exception) real life states don't meet.
Note that my definition isn't really my definition. I didn't come up with most of it, it's cribbed from Max Weber, and his version is commonly used (one big difference being that I substituted 'violence' for 'legitimate violence'). It's a pretty robust definition that works very well. This isn't an anarchist's definition of a state even. Max Weber was far from an anarchist.
Poe
Well-known member
The definition you gave is the one typically given in political science introductions, it doesn't make much sense for anyone to be arguing against it. That is the generally accepted definition of a state
