Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Topic: What if... the state disapeared Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 12:08 |
Very simple question, what would happen if the state disapeared as an organization altogether? I mean how society would look like if govrenment weren't able to rule any longer and if big centralized organization weren't able to carry on (companies, the UN)?
I'm not asking: would we be soooo much happier if the dirty tax man didn't stole us our hard-win-money but what shape society would take? What institutions (communities, taboos, ...) would appear?
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 12:24 |
Imagine the possibilities with no centralized government. Numerous small time groups would enforce their own laws. Constitutions would mean more on Ebay than in the halls of congress. Lack of Federal aid would mean some of us would have to find a job cleaning motorcylcles for over the hill gangs of Harley Davidson owners. Ponce wouldn't be able to run for President. Lastly, we would see large billboards of Tobodai saying "I told you so".
Edited by Seko - 13-Oct-2006 at 12:25
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 13:15 |
More money for the lawyers. I think I'll like this world.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 15:01 |
Lawyers would be out working for McDonalds since there would be no law for them to uphold. The interesting part? When the once proud attorney slips and falls, while cleaning Micky D's bathroom stalls, he's got no one to sue.
Like you said, "I think I'll like this world."
Edited by Seko - 13-Oct-2006 at 15:09
|
|
malizai_
Sultan
Alcinous
Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 15:36 |
If we stick to the major aspects then it would be reasonable to say that since the purpose of the state is to dispense on our behalf a set of duties that would otherwise be too difficult to carry out in individual capacity, we would see the total loss of local government.
Y? because there would be no central Govt paying the Local Govt for those services. Therefore no security(police force), no one would clean the streets or collect the rubbish, failure of health service etc... Those who could get these services would have to pay for them as individuals.
Mass employment because Govt wouldn't be regulating the economy and deciding on what is to be produced.
This would lead to a type of feudalism, with individuals or groups fielding private armies collecting revenues and providing rudimentary services.
Edited by malizai_ - 13-Oct-2006 at 15:38
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 23:38 |
I no idea what everyone else would be doing, but myself, I'd go shoplifting in Harrods.
|
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 23:50 |
We would see hot potch feudalism, without any doubt. These mini
fiefdoms would coalesce into large holdings which would then fight
eachother to become extended communities ruled by powerful families.
And so the whole evolution towards statism begins again......
|
|
malizai_
Sultan
Alcinous
Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 08:15 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
We would see hot potch feudalism, without any doubt. These mini fiefdoms would coalesce into large holdings which would then fight eachother to become extended communities ruled by powerful families. And so the whole evolution towards statism begins again...... |
yup.
States were born out of necessity and as long as people identify the basic need there will be states.
Most of u have witnessed it already, Afghanistan. (caution(many underlying factors endorsing feudalism and warlordism ) ). What followed the implosion at the centre was an explosion of warlordism/feudalism. What followed that was incessant fighting over resources and revenue, and that by the Taliban (State).
samething happening again in Somalia.
A point to note however is that tribal societies are more prone to this type of dysfunction.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 09:04 |
Or socities which have seen near incessant war.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 14:07 |
Sometimes states dissapear, indeed. Some examples are the life during the Dark Middle Ages or the life of the frontier towns of the U.S. or in the Amazonia.
In those periods of times, war lorld take control of the situation and dictates their own laws for their own benefit.
To stop the abusses, people makes the same mistake once again. And there it goes: a state is established once again.
Pinguin
|
|
Peter III
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Oct-2006 at 19:51 |
The state could never disappear. Governments were created not by a few crazy, esoteric intellectuals as a kind of social experiment. They were created by society to fill a need that will always be relevant.
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Oct-2006 at 06:57 |
The nation state could quite easily disappear. However there will always and has always been (in times of peace) a sort of power structure that people seem to be considering the state. Whether this is a feudal, tribal, dictatorship or whatever it'll exist.
I'm not sure if the democratic-nation state is much of an improvement on a monarch-empire anyway.
|
|
vulkan02
Arch Duke
Termythinator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 12:22 |
Depends how nationalistic the people under that nation are. Take Russia for example which is a nation of many different people and different cultures waiting for their chance to break away into smaller nations. The Soviet Union definitely dissappeared but mostly in name only as the command structure was largerly run by present day Russia too. I find it hard to believe that nations could easily dissappear today for two major reason. One, people need to feel as part of something bigger, the city or village no longer provide that need among others such as jobs etc. Also because people need protection from other big nations and a small isolated community is not going to make them "feel safe".
Edited by vulkan02 - 16-Oct-2006 at 12:24
|
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
|
|
Arbr Z
Colonel
Joined: 26-May-2006
Location: Albania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 598
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 19:12 |
This question looks a bit childish (no offence).
If the state dissapears, and if the human civilaztion is still at this point, then believe me, after a year of mish-mash(or even less) the state will reapear.
|
Prej heshtjes...!
|
|
Adalwolf
Chieftain
Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 20:43 |
It won't.
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 12:01 |
Originally posted by Arbr Z
This question looks a bit childish (no offence).
If the state dissapears, and if the human civilaztion is still at this point, then believe me, after a year of mish-mash(or even less) the state will reapear. |
Well I'll take the adjective childish as a real complement as we all know the child ask the elementary questions that we -grown ups- usually refuse or are unable to ask ourselves as we take so many things for granted. So Daddy, is it possible a society without a state? Just two things otherwise I'll be here for ages: 1) The welfare state is going down and there is virtually no country in the West where it is qualitatively progressing. 2) The nightwatcher is sick: armies incapable of facing terrorism (see the English army today), the National Banks getting increasingly independent, police unable to maintain law and order, companies and industries developping selfenforcing methods and so on. I tell you the system is sick and it needs to be reformed. But reformation itself is dangerous. So, the question is childish but not irrelevant.
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 16:02 |
I know Maharbbal uses the word "state" to refer to "government". But I will follow some of the forumers' lead in interpreting the state as the nation-state.
In his science-fiction novel The Diamond Age (1995), Neal Stephenson envisions a post-nation-state world of the future, where countless fragmentations of cultural identity differentiate humanity into spatially discrete tribal zones. Identity has become entirely spatialized, rendering its historical basis - that is, the experiences that generate a "collective memory" for a community - into a decontextualized montage of nostalgia. Stephenson writes a world where modernist notions of progress and development through linear time have been replaced by cultural differentaion across space: history has been conquered by geography. History has become little more than a resource for borrowed cultural traits that are mapped onto discrete territories, and identity is self-consciously constructed by adopting the ready-made form of a particular cultural group.
But if you think about it, the use of history in this so-called "post-nation-state" world of the future is not really THAT different from how history is being used NOW in the nation-state era. The notion of history being conquered by geography is not just something that could happen in a hypothetical world in which nation-states do not exist anymore. All cultural identities, in a way, are already spatialized. That's why modern-day cartograters, together with historians and archaeologists, have all contributed to the creation of all those "imagined communities" that we call "nation-states." Historical "facts" (or fallacies) evoke as much nostalgia among people now as in this hypothetical nation-stateless world.
Reference:
Oakes, T. (2000) China's Provincial Identities: Reviving Regionalism and Reinventing "Chineseness". The Journal of Asian Studies, 59(3), 667-692.
|
|
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Oct-2006 at 20:47 |
State for me is of course government, and I mean all government that is from the White House and number 10 to the city consil in the smallest village. So what I'm talking about is indeed the government, but if it goes down it'd bring in its fall many other things. I'd affect for instance the economy has economies are integrated at the level of the nation (still), it would affect education has well as 'our nation's history' in school wouldn't make any sense.
Besides I'm not sure I understood your point about history and geography.
|
I am a free donkey!
|
|
malizai_
Sultan
Alcinous
Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 09:00 |
"Well I'll take the adjective childish as a real complement as we all know the child ask the elementary questions that we -grown ups- usually refuse or are unable to ask ourselves as we take so many things for granted."
so true.
|
|