From State to Society.

Why we have to leave the old Hierarchic Paradigm of the State and Become Social (a Society). again Version 0.0 (7-1-2010).

In this brand new blog I want to explore the Future of the State.

The State is defefined by Max Weber as a polity that maintains a monopoly on the use of violence.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that questions of the State, how it should be organized, and how it should pursue its ends, were fundamental to the achievement of happiness.

THis blog is a next step in my exploration of the Future of Engineering. The main reason is that the State is the biggest principal of engineering. creates and maintains the laws that control the quality of engineering and educates most of the engineers. The current State is a huge Engineering experiment with disasters as an outcome.

The State we live in is the result of a Bottom Up process.

This process started again after the Great Flood.

After the Flood had swept over the earth and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish. . . . in Uruk the divine Gilgamesh . . . ruled 126 years . . . its kingship was removed to Ur

Hero lion Dur-Sharrukin Louvre AO19862.jpg

Ur was a new start but soon the City States started to make war and grew into a bigger structure.

Ur has always been an important point, a harbor, part of the trade-routes that connected the East and the West. Bacuase of the Trade The rulers (Male and/or Female) of Ur became very rich.

“The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943), said, there are only two ways for men to acquire wealth.

The first method is by producing a good or a service and voluntarily exchanging that good for the product of somebody else. This is the method of exchange, the method of the free market; it’s creative and expands production; it is not a zero-sum game because production expands and both parties to the exchange benefit. Oppenheimer called this method the “economic means” for the acquisition of wealth.

The second method is seizing another person’s property without his consent, i.e., by robbery, exploitation, looting. When you seize someone’s prop­erty without his consent, then you are benefiting at his expense, at the expense of the producer; here is truly a zero-sum “game”–not much of a “game,” by the way, from the point of view of the victim. Instead of expanding production, this method of robbery clearly hobbles and restricts production. So in addition to being immoral while peaceful exchange is moral, the method of robbery hobbles production because it is parasitic upon the effort of the producers.

Oppenheimer called this method of obtaining wealth “the political means.” And then he went on to define the state, or government, as “the organization of the political means,” i.e., the regularization, legiti­mation, and permanent establishment of the political means for the acquisition of wealth.

In other words, the state is organized theft, organized robbery, organized exploitation. And this essential nature of the state is high­lighted by the fact that the state ever rests upon the crucial instrument of taxation.