Why isn't the state necessary? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities








Why isn't the state necessary?

Debate Information

Is there a conception of Justice, or resource management, that does not include the state? How does it supersede the state? In a world with scarcity and demand, how do we operate without a state?



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • AlofRIAlofRI 1475 Pts   -  
    It is! We wouldn't be in the state we're in if not for the state we're in.  :flushed:
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI
    It is! We wouldn't be in the state we're in if not for the state we're in.  flushed

    L'état, c'est moi

    Plaffelvohfen
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1475 Pts   -  
    ?
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 440 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI

    It translates to: "I am the state"
    Blastcat
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2836 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI

    "L'état c'est moi!" (I am the State) is a famous, but apocryphal, quote attributed to Louis XIV... Supposed to symbolize monarchic primacy... I don't see any relevance either...
    Blastcat
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  
    One would need to write an essay to answer your general question in the current political climate. I would just make two points that may prompt further inquiry.

    1. If this truly is a world of scarcity and demand, then would you really want one organization to have a legal monopoly on managing them? If, for instance, healthcare services are scarce, then just how much power over humanity someone who controls it has? On a free market, where thousands healthcare providers may compete, it is hard for one of them to exert any amount of power on people: if someone does, people will just go to a different one who does not. But if the government has the ultimate say in who is allowed or not allowed to provide or to receive healthcare, then its potential tyrannical displays are unlimited.

    2. The vast majority of interactions between humans - including those involving distribution of scarce resources and justice - are purely voluntary and do not involve state. Most family economies do not involve state; most sport matches do not involve state; most Thanksgiving dinners do not involve state... If you compare the amount of time people spend without interacting with a state with that they spend interacting with it, you will see that a state is barely a blip on a radar of most people's lives. One should seriously wonder if that small minority of things people do that does involve a state can also be done without it. State-maintained police, for example, can, in principle, be replaced with private security - and has been on many occasions, although never fully.
    Now, some people will object to it with noting that it is precisely because we have a state that we do not have to interact with it much: the state does a lot of work hidden away from us. Fair enough. This, however, by no means suggests that a viable alternative is impossible.

    Now, I do not know if a state is necessary or not; my gut feeling, as well as general reasoning, tells me that it is not, but I do not have a foresight to tell what a truly stateless society would look like. I suspect that there are many possible varieties of stateless societies, some being major upgrades over current systems, other being major downgrades. I do know, however, that people give up on the idea of individual sovereignty in favor of a cabal of rules far too easily, and very few people even wonder whether a state is necessary at all. Even Ayn Rand, one of the most individualistic thinkers of all time, considered a monopolist on force to be absolutely necessary, and the quality of her arguments against an anarchic free market-based systems suggests that she did not consider this idea seriously (or that she did not get along with Rothbard who tried courting her and was forever bitter about that ;)). At the very least people should give the idea a try in their minds - and not dismiss it with pathetic arguments such as "free markets breed monopolies" or "anarchy equals civil war".
    Blastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @AlofRI @Plaffelvohfen
    ?
    "L'état c'est moi!" (I am the State) is a famous, but apocryphal, quote attributed to Louis XIV... Supposed to symbolize monarchic primacy... I don't see any relevance either...

    Well, anyone whose logical intellect extends to quoting, "We wouldn't be in the state we're in if not for the state we're in" probably would not want to see any relevance either. Indeed, if one were to research the meaning behind the Louis Quatorze quote, one would find that the concept and implications of an absolute monarchy controlling the state has everything to do with the topic.

    If one were to consider the meaningless rhetoric delivered by a public servant ("We wouldn't be in the state we're in.....") , one would realise that it has absolutely no relevance to anything at all because, like most bland public servant rhetoric, it means absolutely nothing at all.


  • @Luigi7255

    It translates to: "I am the state"
    It translates to  "The state it's me." and it is interpreted as " I am the state."
    Blastcat
  • @Swolliw
    , one would find that the concept and implications of an absolute monarchy controlling the state 

    , one would find that the concept and implications of an absolute monarchy controlling the states law, religion, and polotics.
    SwolliwBlastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    It translates to  "The state it's me." and it is interpreted as " I am the state."

     Wrong, it also "translates" as "I am the State".

    Blastcat
  • Swolliw said:
    @John_C_87
    It translates to  "The state it's me." and it is interpreted as " I am the state."

     Wrong, it also "translates" as "I am the State".

    It translates as "The state it's me." then interpreted as "I am the state."

    We translate words and phrases then the meaning is explained from the translated words. 
    However, it is also translated as The state it's myself. This can be interpreted as the aristocratic explanation of a single state as the education of the person who was speaking must be taken into account. Also,  " The state that's myself " is also a translation, and this interpretation would become  "that's the state."

    So yeah I agree, I'm wrong, but then I overthink. I become bored easily and I often do not take well to listen to liars as they often only suffer the crime of not think enough. You are simply explaining the reason behind reading notes from Issia Newton in French and not in English, or a person translating Chinese wood carvings and writings directly besides studying other interpretations.
    Blastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -   edited October 15
    @John_C_87
    It translates as "The state it's me." then interpreted as "I am the state."
    Wrong.....
    translate 
    [transˈleɪt, trɑːnsˈleɪt, tranzˈleɪt, trɑːnzˈleɪt] VERB express the sense of (words or text) in another language.

    Therefore, "
    L'état c'est moi" translates (expressing the sense of in another language) is "I am the State".

    So far as interpretation goes and, as we can well see in these forums, the expression will invariably take on whatever any nit-wit cares to interpret for his or her benefit, for example, "A fly pooed upside down on the ceiling".

    Blastcat
  • L'etat - The state
    C'est - it's
    moi - me, myself

    Translations - The state it's me. The state it's myself.
    Interpretation of the state it's me - I am the state.
    What is called into question is the Interpretation is lack of the use of  "Je" which is translated then to L'etat C'est je possibly translated to I am the state.

    The argument you make is over the Interpretation which is how you are understanding the translation to be heard not how it was made. Also known as created.

    A state can be described as the overall union in basic principle. 
    A better, possibly the best way to describe a constitutional right to speak at liberty is in the American Constitution's Preamble as it states "We the people in order to form the more perfect union." 

    Are you a people?
    Am I a people?
    As state are we the people?
    Blastcat
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1475 Pts   -  
    "WE",the United States, are necessary! Don't believe it? Try voting for *rump next time, you'll find out just how necessary it WAS! (And how foolish people can be! )
    Blastcat
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1475 Pts   -  
    "WE",the United States, are necessary! Don't believe it? Try voting for *rump next time, you'll find out just how necessary it WAS! (And how foolish people can be! )
    BlastcatDonsonRonaldTheIII
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1475 Pts   -  
    "WE",the United States, are necessary! Don't believe it? Try voting for *rump next time, you'll find out just how necessary it WAS! (And how foolish people can be! )
    Blastcat
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1475 Pts   -  
    "WE",the United States, are necessary! Don't believe it? Try voting for *rump next time, you'll find out just how necessary it WAS! (And how foolish people can be! )
    Blastcat
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1475 Pts   -  
    "WE",the United States, are necessary! Don't believe it? Try voting for *rump next time, you'll find out just how necessary it WAS! (And how foolish people can be! )
    Blastcat
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1475 Pts   -  
    Oops.
    Blastcat
  • @AlofRI
    Are you okay?
    The lag gets us all some days...
    Blastcat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch