Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3479457" data-attributes="member: 4937">I feel compelled note that the statement of purpose of the State where the plurality of us dwell is in part, &quot;We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...&quot;.&nbsp; This is a pretty explicit statement that the state exists to promote virtue, although not necessarily virtue in its members directly as Korgoth seems to mean.&nbsp; Yet still, it's not like Korgoth is far off the mainstream.&nbsp; IMO, only someone from the 18th century could have written a statement which is so Classical and yet Libertarian in values.&nbsp; I shudder to think what we'd write now that we are in the main trained and steeped in neither, but that's for a different forum.Like Korgoth, I'm a classicist when it comes to my definition of a state, but the purpose of the state which I support begins where Korgoth's abbreviated Classical definition ends.&nbsp; Classically, a state exists to 'Promote virtue, and discourage vice.'&nbsp; I tend to think that promoting virtue is the job of an individual, precisely because anyone that attempts to promote virtue using the tools of a state - which by definition are violent since a state is by definition that entity which monopolizes the use of violence in a society -&nbsp; tends to do more harm than good.&nbsp; Only people which are insane or fanatically lawful really want someone standing over them with a club going, &quot;Eat your vegetables.&quot;But the second clause of the classical definition of purpose, I'm very much for.&nbsp; I do believe that nations exist in order to &quot;bear the sword&quot; so as to be a &quot;terror to evil doers&quot;.&nbsp; I don't believe that a nation that tolerates evil or refrains from its responcibility to bear the sword out of a misguided sinse of mercy is not destined to last that long.&nbsp; Institutionalized Virtue is frightening because it is something that is the province of the individual.&nbsp; But equally frightening is institutionalized Mercy, because Mercy does not belong in the hands of the state any more than Justice belongs in the hands of the individual.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3479457, member: 4937"] I feel compelled note that the statement of purpose of the State where the plurality of us dwell is in part, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...". This is a pretty explicit statement that the state exists to promote virtue, although not necessarily virtue in its members directly as Korgoth seems to mean. Yet still, it's not like Korgoth is far off the mainstream. IMO, only someone from the 18th century could have written a statement which is so Classical and yet Libertarian in values. I shudder to think what we'd write now that we are in the main trained and steeped in neither, but that's for a different forum. Like Korgoth, I'm a classicist when it comes to my definition of a state, but the purpose of the state which I support begins where Korgoth's abbreviated Classical definition ends. Classically, a state exists to 'Promote virtue, and discourage vice.' I tend to think that promoting virtue is the job of an individual, precisely because anyone that attempts to promote virtue using the tools of a state - which by definition are violent since a state is by definition that entity which monopolizes the use of violence in a society - tends to do more harm than good. Only people which are insane or fanatically lawful really want someone standing over them with a club going, "Eat your vegetables." But the second clause of the classical definition of purpose, I'm very much for. I do believe that nations exist in order to "bear the sword" so as to be a "terror to evil doers". I don't believe that a nation that tolerates evil or refrains from its responcibility to bear the sword out of a misguided sinse of mercy is not destined to last that long. Institutionalized Virtue is frightening because it is something that is the province of the individual. But equally frightening is institutionalized Mercy, because Mercy does not belong in the hands of the state any more than Justice belongs in the hands of the individual. [/QUOTE]

Verification