Definition: State (or, "the state")
Disambiguation: This definition refers exclusively to the concept of a political state, and not to a US territorial or other type of state.

 

Concise Definition of "The State"

"The State" may be briefly defined as the supreme civil authority with respect to a given sovereign polity.   However, to signify anything, this definition immediately requires supplementation with definitions for such related concepts as 'authority', 'sovereign' and 'polity', a sure sign of a complex concept and one enmeshed with other concepts.

For this reason, we will enlarge upon this concise definition with a discussion of a number of related ideas.

The Sovereign State

The most important concept to grasp in connection with the concept of the state is that of sovereignty.  Sovereignty is a claim upon legitimate authority, and hence the use of force, with respect to a given polity.  All claims to legitimate authority are in turn derived from a social contract with the citizens governed by a given state.  When this contract is violated, so is legitimate statehood. 

A valid social contract says, in effect: "I will surrender my right to take the law into my own hands provided that the state helps me and the other members of my society to fairly pursue and achieve our common good."  No other morally legitimate contract can exist, since it would be wrong to accept the authority of a state that pursues harm.

While virtually all forms of polity claim legitimacy for themselves, even those without sovereignty derived from the citizens governed, polities of this nature are nevertheless not legitimate, and are best referred to as dictatorships, irrespectrive of how they may refer to themselves. 

In principle, a sovereign state is one that exists in complete independence of other states.  In practice, however, sovereignty always exists on a continuum of independence, and no actual state is either completely dependent or independent with respect to other states. 

Functions of the State

In "The Common Sense of Politics" American philosopher Mortimer Adler has argued that the

 

legitimate aim of the state is the securing of the common good.  (See the discussion of the social contract above.)  This is true because no social contract can exist where the common good is not the end pursued by the state; and absent a social contract there can be no moral legitimacy for the state.

Scope of the State

Minimalist conceptions of the state invariably betray the robust necessary and sufficient conditions of moral legitimacy.  For example, some, such as John Locke and Adam Smith, have argued that the state exists simply to enforce the ownership of property against the encroachments of those who own no property.  However, this function can only be legitimate to the extent that the ownership of property is itself morally legitimate.   

Unfortunately, under the systems of economics that have prevailed for most of human history, ownership of property has never been entirely legitimate, and often has been almost entirely illegitimate.    (For further discussion of this matter, see "Capitalism, Socialism, Communism: What They Are, Why They Don't Work, What Works Better".)

Because no state can be morally legitimate that fails to observe morally legitimate conditions of ownership, there can be no fully legitimate social contract in societies of this nature. Again, this implies that minimalist conceptions of the state cannot do justice to the purposes of the state.

Moreover, even ensuring legitimate ownership of property is too limited a purpose to achieve the common good.  (For example, on the minimalist view, the state wouldn't even provide for the common defense, or for the construction of public infrastructure such as roads.)  In short, the proper scope of the state is that sufficient to effectively carry out its legitimate ends.

The State and Democracy

Democracy is the only legitimate form of governance. This is because only democracies have as their specific aim the securing of the common good; and only democracies recognize that their legitimacy derives entirely and

 

exclusively from a social contract to secure the common good. Hence, the only legitimate sovereign state is the democratic state.

Consequences of the Abrogation of the Social Contract by the State

The founding fathers of America, in agreement with John Locke, held that serious abrogations of the social contract consituted grounds for revolt.  Ultimately, this was the legitimate ground of the American Revolution.

Consequences of the Abrogation of the Social Contract by the Individual

Violation of the social contract by the individual arise when the individual takes the law into his own hands in one way or another, and to one degree or another.  History shows that there is a tendency on the part of some to pursue narrowly self-interested aims to the detriment of most other people when this occurs.

Special Obligations of Those Governing the State  

In a legitimate democratic state, those elected to govern are charged with pursuing the common good.  Particularly egregious, then, are violations of this trust on the part of elected officials, and equally on the part of those seeking to influence elected officials.  Violations of the public trust committed by public officials serve to damage the very foundations of polity, and can be unusually wide-ranging in their effects.  They are, therefore, especially serious.

Collectivism, Individualism and the State

Collectivist societies are those that place greater value upon equality than upon the autonomy of the individual.  By contrast, individualistic societies place greater value upon the autonomy of the individual than upon equality. 

In practical terms, neither collectivist societies nor highly individualistic societies have shown themselves especially apt at achieving the common good.  In general, then, some balance should be sought between individualism and collectivism.

 

Adler's recommendation with respect to achieving such a balance was that an ideal society have "as much liberty as justice allows, as much equality as justice requires."

This is the essence of liberalism, as opposed to both collectivism and libertarianism.

Critics of the State

The concept of the state has had numerous critics, usually in one of three camps:  collectivists, libertarians, and anarchists.

For example, some political theorists have seen no future for the state, arguing that it will wither away, or that the concept is obsolete and ripe for replacement by something else, such as "free markets". 

However, the state is simply that apparatus that best secures the common good; and in the absence of some such apparatus, something much less than the common good is a certain outcome, as the various laissez-faire phases of polity have conclusively demonstrated over the last two centuries.  Once again, failure to secure the common good constitutes a failure of moral legitimacy.  Arguing the obsolescence of the state is, then, much like arguing the obsolescence of justice, or the obsolescence of rule of law.

Threats to the State

Threats to any legitimate state are threats to the common good.  No more fundamental threat can exist to any society.

The chief opponents of societies that seek the common good, that is, the greatest good of the greatest number, are advocates of societies that seek maximum good for a tiny minority (the view of individualistic elitists).  Such elitist views today are best exemplified by the owners of transnational corporations, who are seeking globalized markets and minimalist states in order to maximize profits for themselves.

There still remain, however, some critics who believe in the supremacy of state over the individual.  In practical terms, theocrats fall into this camp.

See also:  plutocracy, oligarchy, populism, democracy.