Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Maol.Chaluim

Another question

I asked agentmancuso a question in the "nationalism" thread, which wasn't fully answered in the end, as it perhaps wasn't clear enough, and it eventually got lost amongst pages of bickering. Here it is again, with clarification:

I asked something along the lines of; "how would you define a state?". Let's say, for example, you're in charge of Europe (from the Altantic to the Urals) and you have to decide how you're going to govern it. You can redraw the map however you choose. Do you have a single government for the whole area? Do you divide it up into independent states? How would you define the states/subdivisions that you create?
Dave Coull

Maol.Chaluim asks "how would you define a state?" - well, there are various definitions.
Marx and Engels said "the state is an armed body of men", and, at its most basic level,
that is certainly true. However, modern states are much more complicated than that.
One definition would be an independent government, but it is debateable just how
"independent" governments actually are. This is very much so in the age of globalisation,
but if we look at Europe in the middle ages, there are examples of "supra-national"
bodies back then. Quite a few "states" acknowledged some sort of leadership
by the Holy Roman Emperor, and of course the Pope and the Roman
Catholic Church exercised considerable power over independent kingdoms.

> Let's say, for example, you're in charge of Europe (from the Altantic to the Urals)
> and you have to decide how you're going to govern it. You can redraw the map
> however you choose.

No you can't.

In reality, such power could never exist.
You may be able to redraw the map to quite a considerable extent,
but NOT "however you choose"

> Do you have a single government for the whole area?

Impossible.

The Holy Roman Empire never included all of Europe, and even within
the empire it was never a case of "a single government for the whole area".
And that was in the days before the Reformation, when the secular power
had the backing of the religious pwer.

> Do you divide it up into independent states?

You could, but you would have to seek the collaboration
of local people in doing so. You wouldn't have
a completely free hand in deciding on the divisions.

> How would you define the states/subdivisions that you create?

As best as you can.

Some parts of Europe are so mixed up they are VERY difficult
to define. For instance, in which street in Brussels would you draw
the boundary of Flanders? Which side of the street? At number 16
or number 18 ? We are extremely fortunate that Scotland has sea
on most sides, and only a quite short and well-defined land border.
Maol.Chaluim

Hi Dave. I'm proposing a hypothetical situation to see how agentmancuso, and whoever else wants to reply, addresses it.
Dave Coull

Hi Maol.Chaluim, which state are you in at present?
If you're in Scotland, how about coming to visit us?
We're near Brechin, but will be in Perth on Saturday.
Aventinian

Re: Another question

Maol.Chaluim wrote:
I asked agentmancuso a question in the "nationalism" thread, which wasn't fully answered in the end, as it perhaps wasn't clear enough, and it eventually got lost amongst pages of bickering. Here it is again, with clarification:

I asked something along the lines of; "how would you define a state?". Let's say, for example, you're in charge of Europe (from the Altantic to the Urals) and you have to decide how you're going to govern it. You can redraw the map however you choose. Do you have a single government for the whole area? Do you divide it up into independent states? How would you define the states/subdivisions that you create?


That's not really defining the idea of states, that's applying the concept.

Maol.Chaluim wrote:
Hi Dave. I'm proposing a hypothetical situation to see how agentmancuso, and whoever else wants to reply, addresses it.


Oh well, I'll chime in with my usual two Euro cents then...

The only legitimate way to divide power in a liberal society is to reflect where it can be most usefully exercised. Any other considerations are illegitimate.

And obviously, this implies federalism.
agentmancuso

Re: Another question

Maol.Chaluim wrote:

I asked something along the lines of; "how would you define a state?". Let's say, for example, you're in charge of Europe (from the Altantic to the Urals) and you have to decide how you're going to govern it. You can redraw the map however you choose. Do you have a single government for the whole area? Do you divide it up into independent states? How would you define the states/subdivisions that you create?


I'll get the provisio out the way first. Obviously, I'm not designing Europe. And nor, thankfully, is any one else. Because it's obviously far too complicated a question to be left to mere humans to answer. Humans can only design solutions to comparatively simple things. Beyond a certain level of complication, the law of unintended consequences blows all our calculations out of the water. (This is one of the practical, as opposed to moral, objections to socialism. Socialists want the state to design and plan everything for us. It cannot work, because we are just not smart enough.) We need to concentrate on the small simple things in front of us, in a practical and probing sort of way, with one eye on contingency and an acceptance of our own limitations.

That said, I'd design Europe as follows. Or rather, I'd re-design it, because it's there already. And I'd start from where we are now, because we have no other option. I'd devolve as much power as possible to sub-national bodies, and from there to local authorities. Straightforward really.
Maol.Chaluim

This is a clean-slate, hypothetical situation I'm talking about. You can start from where we are now, if you like, but you obviously do have more options, as it's a hypothetical situation...
Jimbo

Re: Another question

agentmancuso wrote:
Maol.Chaluim wrote:

I asked something along the lines of; "how would you define a state?". Let's say, for example, you're in charge of Europe (from the Altantic to the Urals) and you have to decide how you're going to govern it. You can redraw the map however you choose. Do you have a single government for the whole area? Do you divide it up into independent states? How would you define the states/subdivisions that you create?


I'll get the provisio out the way first. Obviously, I'm not designing Europe. And nor, thankfully, is any one else. Because it's obviously far too complicated a question to be left to mere humans to answer. Humans can only design solutions to comparatively simple things. Beyond a certain level of complication, the law of unintended consequences blows all our calculations out of the water. (This is one of the practical, as opposed to moral, objections to socialism. Socialists want the state to design and plan everything for us. It cannot work, because we are just not smart enough.) We need to concentrate on the small simple things in front of us, in a practical and probing sort of way, with one eye on contingency and an acceptance of our own limitations.

That said, I'd design Europe as follows. Or rather, I'd re-design it, because it's there already. And I'd start from where we are now, because we have no other option. I'd devolve as much power as possible to sub-national bodies, and from there to local authorities. Straightforward really.


Pretty much like the Persians did with their massive empire 2,500 years ago.
agentmancuso

Maol.Chaluim wrote:
This is a clean-slate, hypothetical situation I'm talking about. You can start from where we are now, if you like, but you obviously do have more options, as it's a hypothetical situation...


I'm not sure what the point would be. We never have hypothetical situations. We only ever have concrete reality, which is at best complex and often messy. But anyway:

The administrative divisions of a hypothetical new Europe would be of little concern to me. The only thing that matters is the distribution of power. Apply the principle of subsidiarity across the board, devise institutions which allow the governed to change the government peacefully should they choose to do so, separate legislature from executive, and ensure equality before the law. Where you draw the lines on the map is purely an aesthetic concern.
Aventinian

This would be fun, if perhaps slightly impractical: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006410088,00.html
agentmancuso

Brilliant stuff. You can always rely on the Germans when copy runs short Laughing
SLG

Re: Another question

Aventinian wrote:
The only legitimate way to divide power in a liberal society is to reflect where it can be most usefully exercised. Any other considerations are illegitimate.

Yes I agree with that.

Aventinian wrote:
And obviously, this implies federalism.

Does it? Why does there need to be any central government at all? Can we not create the environment in which more local units of government can interact without a centralised body of government?
Aventinian

Re: Another question

SLG wrote:
Quote:
And obviously, this implies federalism.

Does it? Why does there need to be any central government at all? Can we not create the environment in which more local units of government can interact without a centralised body of government?


I think the idea of 'central government' is a red herring in this debate to some extent. After all - what meaning does it really have in a true federation? The only think that makes the UK level 'central' is some belief in parliamentary sovereignty that we could withdraw from the EU, and then a lot of tradition. There shouldn't be a 'central government' - just ones with different competences, which is a trend which has already begun with the EU's 'exclusive competences' - which I must say, is an incredible step and one that, should the British people have paid attention, they'd probably be quite outraged by. As ever, though, my opinion of the public is not very high.

Governments interacting is never a good idea in my mind. The present structure of the EU and UN, I believe, is fair evidence of this - and demonstrate that these bodies have never really evolved into anything meaningful because they are so state-focused. Especially in the EU case, this has served only to dilute democratic accountability and open government.

I'd always rather see an accountable legislature than a smokey (or not these days) backroom filled with government appointees - vulgar little self-important legates, elected by around a quarter of the population if present elections are anything to go by.
Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote about politicians who are "elected by around
a quarter of the population if present elections are anything
to go by".

The idea that you could have a democratic society in which leaders
are elected by a far larger percentage is a fantasy. Of course,
Joe Stalin achieved electoral approval in the high 90s, but very
few nowadays would seriously suggest the USSR under Stalin
was democratic. As for the UK, the main reason politicians
at Westminster have, historically, attained higher levels
of apparent support than those at Holyrood, was because
of the distortion caused by the "first past the post" system.

Aventinian also wrote "my opinion of the public is not very high".
So, while dismissing the results of democracy on the grounds
that not enough people take part in it, Aventinian also shows
a tendency to dismiss the demos in general, presumably
favouring some kind of (self-selecting) oligarchy instead.
Aventinian

Dave Coull wrote:
Aventinian wrote about politicians who are "elected by around
a quarter of the population if present elections are anything
to go by".


Which is why I don't believe governments are all that legitimate, particularly when international organisations give them virtually absolute power to the exclusion of their national parliaments.

International legislatures are the way forward. Plus it takes away huge disparities in representation that result from the differing size of sovereign states.

Quote:
Aventinian also wrote "my opinion of the public is not very high".
So, while dismissing the results of democracy on the grounds
that not enough people take part in it, Aventinian also shows
a tendency to dismiss the demos in general, presumably
favouring some kind of (self-selecting) oligarchy instead.


Nope, I believe in parliamentary democracy. Democracy is a good check on power, but a poor master. Letting the people dictate individual issues, however, is a fast road to hell.

I believe, however, far more in liberty than democracy. Really, if something is so arbitrary that is it only being decided by a headcount, then it really should be left to the individual or otherwise avoided.
Rinty

To marxists state is all about rule of one class or group over another and that the ultimate aim is eradication of the conflicts between classes and groups leading to having no state, what marx described as the need for a state "withering away" and engels described as "replacing goverment of people with the adminsitration of things".

I think what you are talking about Maol is nation states as we have them in todays society. In that situiation I agree that it is best to have smaller units as close to the people as possible with real dovolution of power.

Ultimately thought the disppearance of the state is the aim.
agentmancuso

Rinty wrote:
To marxists state is all about rule of one class or group over another and that the ultimate aim is eradication of the conflicts between classes and groups leading to having no state...
Ultimately thought the disppearance of the state is the aim.


Why, then, does every political party in the world that regards itself as even partly Marxist have a political programme based on increasing the authority and power of the state, and further limiting the parameters within which a free individual can operate?

Why has every single Marxist state in history been a totalitarian, autocratic monster, relying on brute force to enforce its agenda? And why has this agenda never included a relinquishing of the reigns of power to anybody else?
Rinty

You would have to ask them mancusco not me.

Why does every government that believes in the free market introduce controls on trade?

marxist goverments would see the initial task of a state to be turning the state apparatus from control by one class or group into the reverse as part of eradicating the conditions that require a state in the first place.

I would suggest that many of them (the situations are too diverse to generalise) may either lose their way, are not actually marxists in the first place, or get tied up in economic sanctions or hostile wars that prevent them developing a marxist programme.

But marxists believe in having no state, its one of the very basic parts of marxist theory that I think most people would know.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter 'Top Scottish Websites' - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Top Site - Topsites Top 100 Scottish Websites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites Tartan Army Topsites View Site Stats Our Scotland Blog Scottish Politics Scottish Lads