Suppose you don't believe in governance by the people and for the people, but everyone else does. Find a way to undermine their faith in it so you may benefit from the resulting concentration of power
"The State" has never been "a structure of people aimed at representing the will of the beneficiaries of that structure. The People." "The People" does not exist as a discrete entity, only individual human beings with various wants and needs exist - the individual is the starting point of all methodological and praxeological analysis of "society". "The State" is the organisation that claims the monopoly on violence and to coercion in a given "society". States by their very nature become centralised and increasingly authoritarian. Social order is a spontaneous, emergent phenomenon which functions best in conditions of individual liberty and the principles of human interaction (aka Law) that arise from that .
I agree, but you're not talking about the State in your first part description, you're talking about government. Spontaneous social order that results from popularizing the correct application of Natural Law, is the State.
I beg to differ. Governance is the correct application of natural law. "The State" is the arbitrary power claimed by a group of looters over over a group of humans who have found a way to live together relatively peaceably under a set of principles that allow for such a way of existing. I'm with Franz Oppenheimer on this one - you can choose the political (the looters in Ayn Rand's terminology) or the economic ( the creative, principled way of getting by). What do you choose? Apart form that it's just semantics.
All you did is supplant the word State for Governance, it makes no difference to the literal definition and etymology of the word. Your indoctrinated view of the word State does not change its definition and word etymology. State means a structure of people, if that's not governance then I'm not a man, I identify as a plant.
Your problem is government, which is a form of violence, even in the definition and word etymology.
Who says "state" means a structure of people? That is your "indoctrinated view". I see government arising from the state; they are not exactly equivalent because government comes in many different forms; the clothing of the state if you like. "The State" uses "government", which is an organisation that claims the monopoly on violence, to circumvent the process of actually producing value and extracting value from those who do produce value. My use of the term "governance" (and it's my own for want of any better word) is referring to the set of principles that are used to arbitrate disputes in any given spontaneously formed community or group of people living in proximity. For all intents and purpose "the state" and "government" are the same thing except that governments take different forms in different settings but "the state" is the idea that one group of people have the right to impose their will on others (e.g. "social credit") due to some some supposed superiority e.g. the divine right of kings, the dictatorship of the proletariat, superior scientific understanding etc.
However I view it, there is no "the people", and hence there is no "by the people, of the people, for the people". If you think more so-called democracy will solve our problems, I strongly suspect you will be disappointed. If I'm lucky, I might have another 30 or so years left on this planet. and I would rather not spend that in the hell we have been put through in the last few years. I will continue to advocate a free and open society to anyone who will listen (very very few), apart from that, I have no interest in arguing with statists and authoritarians of any ilk e.g. socialists, "communists", neo-cons, neo-libs, social creditors etc.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Feel free to push your agenda more, just don't expect anything in response - got to make the most of those last few years.
Word etymology, it is the study of the origin and make up of words. Linguists would have an interest in this study and would have an insight into word warfare. Your whole paragraph described the word "government".
The -ment in government is derived from the Latin -mentum through French and relates to processes. You are making up your own ideas. Not surprising from a social creditor.
"The State" has never been "a structure of people aimed at representing the will of the beneficiaries of that structure. The People." "The People" does not exist as a discrete entity, only individual human beings with various wants and needs exist - the individual is the starting point of all methodological and praxeological analysis of "society". "The State" is the organisation that claims the monopoly on violence and to coercion in a given "society". States by their very nature become centralised and increasingly authoritarian. Social order is a spontaneous, emergent phenomenon which functions best in conditions of individual liberty and the principles of human interaction (aka Law) that arise from that .
I agree, but you're not talking about the State in your first part description, you're talking about government. Spontaneous social order that results from popularizing the correct application of Natural Law, is the State.
I beg to differ. Governance is the correct application of natural law. "The State" is the arbitrary power claimed by a group of looters over over a group of humans who have found a way to live together relatively peaceably under a set of principles that allow for such a way of existing. I'm with Franz Oppenheimer on this one - you can choose the political (the looters in Ayn Rand's terminology) or the economic ( the creative, principled way of getting by). What do you choose? Apart form that it's just semantics.
All you did is supplant the word State for Governance, it makes no difference to the literal definition and etymology of the word. Your indoctrinated view of the word State does not change its definition and word etymology. State means a structure of people, if that's not governance then I'm not a man, I identify as a plant.
Your problem is government, which is a form of violence, even in the definition and word etymology.
Who says "state" means a structure of people? That is your "indoctrinated view". I see government arising from the state; they are not exactly equivalent because government comes in many different forms; the clothing of the state if you like. "The State" uses "government", which is an organisation that claims the monopoly on violence, to circumvent the process of actually producing value and extracting value from those who do produce value. My use of the term "governance" (and it's my own for want of any better word) is referring to the set of principles that are used to arbitrate disputes in any given spontaneously formed community or group of people living in proximity. For all intents and purpose "the state" and "government" are the same thing except that governments take different forms in different settings but "the state" is the idea that one group of people have the right to impose their will on others (e.g. "social credit") due to some some supposed superiority e.g. the divine right of kings, the dictatorship of the proletariat, superior scientific understanding etc.
However I view it, there is no "the people", and hence there is no "by the people, of the people, for the people". If you think more so-called democracy will solve our problems, I strongly suspect you will be disappointed. If I'm lucky, I might have another 30 or so years left on this planet. and I would rather not spend that in the hell we have been put through in the last few years. I will continue to advocate a free and open society to anyone who will listen (very very few), apart from that, I have no interest in arguing with statists and authoritarians of any ilk e.g. socialists, "communists", neo-cons, neo-libs, social creditors etc.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Feel free to push your agenda more, just don't expect anything in response - got to make the most of those last few years.
Word etymology, it is the study of the origin and make up of words. Linguists would have an interest in this study and would have an insight into word warfare. Your whole paragraph described the word "government".
Govern=Control
Ment/Mentis, Men: to think= Mind
That's the literal meaning of the word.
The -ment in government is derived from the Latin -mentum through French and relates to processes. You are making up your own ideas. Not surprising from a social creditor.