Do We Need a State
Before asking the question of whether or not a state is needed, it important that the idea's of a state are outlined so that clearer notions of what is being discussed can be achieved. A state, in today's world, consists of an area of land to which people and all things on this land are enclosed by borders. Everyone inside these borders must adhere to a common set of rules and regulations with which to base their lives upon. Some states have more rules and/or harsher rules than others, but the general ideology behind the state is that there is some sort of third party coercion over the people. We need a state in order to keep us in a general sense of order, away from the social chaos, which might occur without one. A state, however large or small, strict or loose, must be in place to provide us with direction, minimal services, and protection from others. By looking at both economic and moral/social arguments put forth by some by of the great Political Philosophers of all time it is clear that many of them believe that at least some form of state is needed. Not including anarchists, even the most staunch reformers of their own time, those who wanted no state at all, agree that a state of some sort is necessa
Nozick believes in three principles of a moral foundation for all people. They are: Life, Liberty, and Protection. He feels that these three principles are at risk with the coercion of a state. He would like to see the emergence of "Protection Agencies" and "Distributive Justice" in society. A protection agency, in Nozick's view, consists of a group of people from a concentrated area that help each other socially, economically, and with personal defense from other protection agencies. He feels that in all likeliness a single, dominant protection agency would form and take control of a large group of protection agencies, and thus form a sort of state that would govern over matters of the people. Smith is also widely remembered for his view on the individual within the state. He believed that it was crucial that the individuals do as he/she pleased in order to pursue their own best interests. He said that this would inadvertently benefit society as a whole. He called this his "Invisible Hand Theory". He felt that private property was to be protected and not threatened by the state. He thought that the individual could do what they pleased with their private property without state intervention. The ultimate objective of this was that private property control would lead to co-operation and mutual respect within a society. He also worried about the Monarch over managing of the economy at a time when it did not have enough knowledge about it. Again if the individual were left to pursue his/her own best economic interests it would evolve into being for the greater good of the state and society. This policy has taken the French phrase "Laissez-Faire" or "Let Do" meaning that the individual should be left alone by the government. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, believed in stronger individual freedoms and increased private property rights but agreed that a state was necessary in order to provide the minimal services and economic structure for a society. Smith makes it perfectly clear that it should not try to manage the economy as if allowed the individuals will collectively control the economy as per their own best interests. The state's role, however minimal it would be, was to be intrical in providing direction for trade, commerce, and the economy.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Adam Smith, Robert Nozick, Distributive Justice, President Roosevelt, , John Keynes, Hand Theory, Smith Nozick, Keynes Keynes, Political Philosophers, adam smith, robert nozick, life liberty protection, private property, liberty protection, life liberty, protection agencies, large-scale public, smith robert, john keynes, minimal services, smith robert nozick, adam smith robert,
Approximate Word count = 1677
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
