An Analysis of the State
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE __________________________________________________ A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri __________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ___________________________________________ by ALAN TOMHAVE Dr. Peter Vallentyne, Dissertation Supervisor AUGUST 2008 The Undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE Presented by Alan Tomhave A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy And hereby certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. _____________________________________________ Professor Peter Vallentyne _____________________________________________ Professor Joseph Bien _____________________________________________ Professor Paul Weirich _____________________________________________ Professor Robert Johnson _____________________________________________ Professor John Howe For Hillary and Aidan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor, Dr. Peter Vallentyne, for the help, guidance and patience that he has offered both before and during this project. Thanks also to my committee members, each of whom have contributed to my development and to the development of this project in different ways, Dr. Joe Bien, Dr. Paul Weirich, Dr. Robert Johnson, and Dr. John Howe. I own a special debt to Dr. Joe Bien and Dr. Bina Gupta, both of whom have fostered interests in diverse areas of philosophy, which has helped keep me going. I also owe a debt of gratitude to the many interesting stimulating conversations I had with fellow graduate student colleagues. I am especially grateful for conversations with Mat Konieczka, Justin Mc Brayer, Michael Hartsock, Jon Trerise, and Jason Berntsen. Of particular importance along these lines are discussions that I have had with Eric Roark. The conversations I have had with Eric have been of great importance not only in the development of this project, but also in many other projects. Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to those who raised me and fostered both a love of learning and stressed the importance of asking questions, two conditions without which philosophy cannot exist. - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ ii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1. THE QUESTION......................................................................................................1 The question The Usual Suspects Features Concerning Control A Coercive Institution The Monopoly of Force Physical Features Geographical Region Size Continuous in Space and Time Institutional Features A Governmental Apparatus Functional Goals Doxastic Features Internal Acceptance and External Recognition of Legitimacy Strong Claims to Be Advancing the Common Good Moral Features Sufficiently Just Political Authority Moral Unassailability Methodology The debates Anarchism International Relations Concluding 2. MORAL FEATURES .............................................................................................24 Introduction - iii - Anarchism and State Sovereignty in International Relations Three Concepts of Legitimacy: Justice, Political Authority, and Moral Unassailability Justice Political Authority Moral Unassailability Conclusion 3. FEATURES CONCERNING CONTROL .............................................................40 Introduction Coercive Control The Monopoly On the Use of Force Conclusion 4. MISCELLANEAS OTHER FEATURES...............................................................74 Introduction Physical Features Geographic Region Size Continuous in Space and Time Institutional Features Governmental Apparatus Functional Goals Doxastic Features Internal Acceptance and External Recognition of Legitimacy Strong Claims to be Advancing the Common Good Conclusion 5. CONCLUDING ......................................................................................................94 Introduction Methodology The Debates Justice-Anarchism - iv - Authority-Anarchism State Sovereignty in International Relations Some Rejected Features Some Features Requiring Further Examination A Central Feature? Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................103 VITA................................................................................................................................105 - v - AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE Alan Tomhave Dr. Peter Vallentyne, Dissertation Supervisor ABSTRACT What the state is remains far from clear in political philosophy. However, the state is also a key concept at work in many discussions in political philosophy. For example, there is a debate about anarchism, the question of whether or not the state is legitimate in some way. However, if we are unclear about what the state is, then we cannot be clear about what the position of anarchism amounts to. To this end, I have attempted to find some necessary features of statehood. I have done this by considering two debates in political philosophy that concern the state. The first is the already mentioned issue of anarchism. The second is the issue of state sovereignty in international relations. The worry in this second debate is about the interference by some states with the affairs of other states. The guiding question for the dissertation has been: What features are required for the debates in question to make sense? If a debate requires a feature, then that feature is necessary for statehood. The central feature for statehood which has emerged concerns control. Basically, a state is an organization that controls the lives of its citizens in some way. Usually, this minimally means that a state says when citizens can and cannot use force and that this control is ensured through the use of forcible coercion. Any other features that we may be able to point to as necessary will be necessary only to ensure that states do control the lives if their citizens in some way. - vi - Chapter One: The Question I. The Question What is a state? Political philosophy can be defined partially by reference to the state as its primary subject of inquiry. Furthermore, to some degree, all that is needed in discussions in political philosophy is a mention of the state and all know what we are talking about, on some intuitive level. However, upon further examination, it is not clear what the state is. For example, must a state be moral? Further, does the state need to control a geographical region? Must it be arranged in a particular way? Must others recognize it as a state? Philosophers, political scientists and sociologists, among others, have put forth various necessary or sufficient conditions of being a state, answering both “yes” and “no” to these questions, among possible other. Yet, the state has only rarely been subject to a detailed and substantial analysis. Thus, the current project is to undertake a significant part of such an analysis. I seek to clarify the notion of the state with specific reference to two debates in political philosophy: anarchism and state sovereignty in international relations. I will begin with a few brief comments as to why this is an important question in political philosophy. Following these comments will be very brief descriptions of some answers to the question of what features a state has. For the purposes of the present chapter each of these features should be taken as necessary, at least while being discussed. Following these descriptions I will discuss methodology for the dissertation. Finally, I will more fully motivate why I have chosen the two selected debates and give a - 1 - short description of each issue. This chapter will not be concerned with critically analyzing any of the features introduced here, nor with drawing conclusions about what features must be included to make sense of the debates. Greater detail on these two fronts will be provided in later chapters. It is important to clarify the concept of the state because of its prevalence in much of political philosophy, as well as other disciplines. If such a key concept turns out to be unclear, then how can we be clear in the debates where the state features prominently? Take the two debates already mentioned as an example. Anarchism is the view that no state (or very few states) is (are) just, or that no state (or very few states) has (have) political authority. Thus, the anarchist is working on the state primarily as it relates to the supposed citizens of the state. The international relations theorist, on the other hand, is more concerned with relations of the state that are external. What actions are permissible regarding other states? Suppose that it turned out that the state was something different for the anarchist than for the international relations theorist. Even worse, suppose that their views on the state were simply inconsistent. At best, they are discussing the same type of group; until an analysis is undertaken, we do not know if this best-case scenario holds or if it is a scenario where they are talking past one another or are discussing inconsistent views. Until we are clear about what the state is, we cannot claim clarity regarding the debates concerning the state. For some debates about the state, some or all of the differences in the