Can a Healthy State Function Without OPPRESSION?

[Boyar Son]

Can one?

An obvious overdose of oppression can kill a state (Nazi Germany, Spanish colonies), I know. But has any healthy nation/country ever survive without discrimination or intolerance towards a certain group of people?

Each nation should take a healthy approach to intolerance to ensure the state's (as a whole) existence Y/N?

[Denny Crane!]

Well you'd think so, but the drug wars say no it seems.

[Enemy of the State]

War is the health of the state. There always needs to be an enemy, internal or external.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

War is the health of the state. There always needs to be an enemy, internal or external.

that is true of life itself, and is the reason you're not a hunter gatherer.

However yes it can. I can't think of any oppression by the state here in Ireland.

[Jingles]

In other words, the short answer is no.

The maxim "while the state exists there can be no freedom" still holds true.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

In other words, the short answer is no.

The maxim "while the state exists there can be no freedom" still holds true.

Therefore, there can be no "true" freedom.

[Kjertesvein]

Well, what is your definition of "oppression"? It's subjective to judge what is and isn't.

If you go deep enuff, then all states but those who are completly new are oppressive in nature. When/if they get older, they will immediately grow inlock with the peoples (collective/personal) economy. Example would be the US constitution which was made by a very weak state at the time (in debt, just came out of a war, etc.) Today, US is quite the opposite because a state will allways grow to it's maximum size and will therfor (naturally) oppress people with not the same moral outlook or ideas. One way or another really.

~Wille

[Boyar Son]

Well, what is your definition of "oppression"? It's subjective to judge what is and isn't.

Well i took that into thought.

And i left it as it is. Vague. So you all can give your own answers that are completely different from each other for the sake of the thread.

[Poach]

op·pres·sion

   /əˈprɛʃən/ Show Spelled[uh-presh-uhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

2. an act or instance of oppressing.

3. the state of being oppressed.

4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

Using this definition, the answer must be yes. A state can exercise it's power and authority without being oppressive, for it is only oppression if use of such power or authority is done in an unjust way.

Granted, no state on Earth has a perfect judicial system and everyone has laws they'd like to see changed or abolished, but the majority of these laws (in modernised states anyway) are disliked as a matter of opinion rather than because they're widely accepted as unjust or an affront to freedoms.

[Jingles]

[B][FONT=Arial Unicode MS][SIZE=4]

Using this definition, the answer must be yes. A state can exercise it's power and authority without being oppressive, for it is only oppression if use of such power or authority is done in an unjust way.

Granted, no state on Earth has a perfect judicial system and everyone has laws they'd like to see changed or abolished, but the majority of these laws (in modernised states anyway) are disliked as a matter of opinion rather than because they're widely accepted as unjust or an affront to freedoms.

Don't you see though?

"the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner."

The definition is 100% subjective. In fact, going by that definition, I could say that Tescos is oppressing me if I wanted.

The state, as we all know has the monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force. Every state, even the most benign one is guilty of the very same crimes that it locks its own citizens away for, but gets away with it simply by virtue of the fact that it has the biggest guns.

[Enemy of the State]

The state, as we all know has the monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force. Every state, even the most benign one is guilty of the very same crimes that it locks its own citizens away for, but gets away with it simply by virtue of the fact that it has the biggest guns.

Wait... What? That's something I'd say. You're sounding like a market anarchist

[Jingles]

Wait... What? That's something I'd say. You're sounding like a market anarchist

lol. If stating the facts makes me a market anarchist, then so be it.

[Enemy of the State]

lol. If stating the facts makes me a market anarchist, then so be it.

Well from my experience statists don't usually admit to the hypocrisy of the state.

[Strelok]

No. Unless it's completely voluntary and everyone chose to be healthy.

[magickyleo101]

Can one?

An obvious overdose of oppression can kill a state (Nazi Germany, Spanish colonies), I know. But has any healthy nation/country ever survive without discrimination or intolerance towards a certain group of people?

Each nation should take a healthy approach to intolerance to ensure the state's (as a whole) existence Y/N?

There's a certain trivial sense in which law is inherently discriminatory - when the law says "you can't speed" it discriminates against the class of people who would ordinarily speed.

But I don't think that that sense really entails that the state is inherently oppressive or anything. We generally distinguish between discrimination that's acceptable (e.g. against murderers) and discrimination that's not (e.g. against black people) and it's generally only the latter that is considered oppressive.

So if you're asking whether we're all basically the Nazis, the answer is no.

[Jingles]

Alot of statists are liars, though.

[Dr. Croccer]

Alot of ''statists'' don't believe in whiny nonsense and think that divididing power from a particable, decentralized, democratic government to profit-based, centralised and authoritarian organisations is a pointless and dubious affair.

Authority will always exist, and you'll always be ''oppressed''. Be glad that we've reached a level in which that ''oppression'' has decreased to just paying a share of your wealth in exchange of services.

[Claudius Gothicus]

As long as the state exist some form of Violence Monopoly will exist. And that Violence Monopoly is usually aimed at certain sectors of society, be it for casual or causal reasons.

So no, a State needs certain level of coercion to actually sustain itself. Because due to the heterogeneous nature of societies there's always going to be some ers that behave in an antisocial way, and that's where the state steps in in the form of a white racist and ignorant cop that tasers you down without real reasons

[Dr. Croccer]

''Violence monopoly'' is so passe. There are so much nastier words for such mundane things. Try ''Genocide of individualism'' instead of ''state''.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

All of these a bunch of derogatory catchwords invented by recluse intellectuals who derive their own useless sustenance from academic bonuses granted by the very same State which they decry.