What Are The Pros And Cons Of State

Make the State the provider, employer and moral authority. To do this, the State has to convince the masses that only it can provide and bestow equality, rights and privileges - a benevolent dictatorship along the lines of Huxley’s, "Brave New World Revisited".

The defining characteristic of the state is the ability to wield power. The use of power, both inside and outside of one’s border, directly speaks to the sovereignty of the nation. If a nation is incapable of disciplining or punishing its citizens it will invariably become a failed state. Moreover if a country isn’t recognized as powerful in the global political arena, that country stands a very good chance of being dominated by a nation who has the capacity to enforce its own will. The use, or at least the perception, of power is so fundamental in nationhood that those who wield the most power can easily dictate world events.

The “state” is best understood in relation to a government’s power, influence and involvement with citizens’ rights in a given territory. The larger the state the more involved it is in the lives of its citizens.

The definition of ‘state’ is ambiguous. The meaning can change depending on the context. For instance, it could relate to agencies within the state such as government bodies, or the practices carried out by individuals. Furthermore, the state is part of everyday life and manifests itself through the combination of institutions, practices, people and discourses. This creates social order (Blakeley and Saward, 2009, p. 360).

The arguments that I have just laid out are not perfect and they have some apparent flaws that some philosophers would strongly disagree with, while there are other arguments that some of the great philosophers would agree with. I will critique the arguments that I have just laid out using the perspective of three different philosophers who all have their own ideas of how the state should function and the role of the citizen. The three philosophers that I will use in this critique will be Karl Marx, John Stewart Mill, and John Locke. The reason why I picked these three philosophers is because they all agree with some aspects of my writing, while disagreeing with others. One will disagree with the role of the state and the citizens, but

Some contemporary Scholars like Quentin Skinner define the state today as "a locus of power distinct from either the ruler or the body of the body of the people." (Skinner, Foundations of Modern Political Thought, II, p.355). Yet, others would argue that the potency of the word "state" derives from the fact that it means both ruler and people. In other words, the state is at the same time loved for its promise of order and stability for the whole community and feared for its threat of coercion by the power which does the ordering. Both schools of thought may be right for there is no universal definition of the concept. But no intellectual discussion about the concept of the state is complete without a review of the writings of St. Thomas

Five points can be made by Faulks, to support this argument but only highlighted are the ones that explain President Trump’s immigration order. In the state-centric society, the state possesses a number of resources of power, particularly those relating to its surveillance capabilities over its citizens, which gives it the capacity to penetrate and influence civil society. The state cannot be understood in isolation, but exists within a states system (Faulks, 2000). In the context of mutual suspicion between states, the importance of the state’s military capacity is crucial. The state is not just there as a mediator between the interests of the population, or as an economic manager, but as a symbol and defender of the ‘imagined community’ that forms the dominant cultural identity of any particular state-civil society relationship (Faulks, 2000). This close relationship between the state and nationalism gives the state an invaluable communicative power to unify disparate elements of civil society, particularly in times of war or during other crises that might face the state (Faulks, 2000). These points all help to further explain President Trump’s immigration order better by using the lenses of someone with a state-centric

This weekend I saw an ambulance and realized how much the power the government has given the health services. The ambulance was speeding down the street with its sirens blaring and every car moved out of its way. This is another example of the power the government and of the government’s legitimacy. The government protects the priority of the sick and injured which is thoughtful of them. This encounter with the state ties with my encounter with the state while crossing the street because both are enforced by citizens’ fear of the government. If someone attempts to slow down an ambulance then they are inviting a very large fine or even jail time. This punishment and enforcement of it is what keeps the citizens from ignoring laws and

In a way trying to control Syrian refugee population. The fourth one is states want recognition and legitimacy bothe domestically and internationally. The government of that state want to be recongnize by its people and also internationally the example of this can be taliban trying to take control of Afghanistan and considering themselves as legitimate government of Afghanistan, but they are not recognize both domestically and internationally. The 5th one is states want both political and economic unification such as autonomy/capacity. Economically states seek to have a single state of coinage, uniform weighs and measure. The characteristics of state autonomy and capacity are states that have high autonomy have strong centralize government. Low capacity means states are able to function with a minimum of public inference. Low autonomy means state power and scope of activity is limited. High capacity means a state is a weak state because it has maximum public nterference and power is decentralized. The 6th one is states should have a ability to defend the state interest. It means it should be able to protect itself from foreign interference. It should be able to make the decisions without foreign interference that would benefit the state. an example of this would be dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir in which both India and Pakistan want to control this

In fact, it is impossible for a State not to be a burden on society and make its constituents worse off. Think for moment of a king. In any decision he makes, whether it be to install a new bathtub in the castle or to institute a new public works program, he will be forcing his will upon the citizens of his domain. And imagine a man, who opposes the king’s command. What will happen to him? First, he will be sternly commanded to obey the authority of the king. But if he refuses to comply, he will be imprisoned or otherwise subject to punishment. And if the man continues to refuse to cooperate with the king’s orders, despite ever increasing punishments, eventually the king will have no choice

State is commonly referred to either the present condition of a system or entity, or to a governed entity, such as a nation or a province. The state itself consists of the society, government as well as the people living there. Before the Second World War, State is often seen as the main actor in international Relations as it can declare states of wars, control most of the economic influence within the region and larger states often dominant the role of international relations within the region or even in the globe. However, after the Second World War, the impacts on state influence as an actor has become less important than before, regarding to this point, there is

Modernization of the statehood has developed over the course of history, and has clearly defined properties, which give the foundations for ruling. The development of the modern state can only be understood by first evaluating its characteristics. Four major values include: territory, sovereignty (internal and

The years between the 1940s and 1970s are characterized by the so-called Developmentalism. The Developmentalism is the belief that the social and economic development should be achieved with the intervention and the leadership of the state throughout a scientific planning. In this view, the developmentalism becomes, either, a way to legitimate the power in a long-term perspective. The relationship between state and bureaucracy is the tool to maintain the control over the nation. The Age of Developmentalism, in particular, refers to the historical process characterizes the decolonization period in Africa and Asia, where Western countries as Britain and the United States in primis, and later as France and Germany in reality, embodies the of the guide in the development process. In this literature review, there will be the focus on the role of the state in the development process, point out the lacks and the failures in Africa and in India, analysing the common elements of the two processes and the point of differences. MODIFICARE!!!

During the postcolonial decade, the implication of the state was quite natural in planning economic development strategies and coordinating state building, as the private sector was weak, social front fragmented, most public institutions were fragile and economies based on rural and agrarian production and dependent on primary commodity exports (Cheeseman 2013). It was imperative for postcolonial state to elaborate

This part explains the centralized policies with focus on the state capacities, which is the vital factor of developmental states model, and emphasizes on implications of the centralization for resource-rich developmental states. The initial stage of the extractive industry demands the centralization in which the government exerts the strong state capacities, such as abilities to autonomously have its policy ownership (e.g. design and implement industrial policies), to efficiently mobilize resources and to rationally allocate revenues from the resources to more productive sectors in a given society (Arellano-Yanguas and Mejía-Acosta, 2014). Such a state-led development often results from political leadership based on a strong ideology called ‘developmentalism’ and requires the trained and efficient bureaucracy to devise national development schemes and implement relevant legal frameworks (Reinert, 2010).