Talk:Justification for the state

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Politics: Libertarianism High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance).

2004 comments

The articles The purpose of government and The justification of the state are both pieces of User:Larrys Text. The justification of the state says: "Notice I am using the words "state" and "government" interchangeably here." Therefore I suggest to merge the two into one article, since the (one and the same) author claims they are in essense about the same (unless seomeone wants to split hairs state/govt and purpose/justfn). Mikkalai 01:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just split the hair

In strict usage, "state" and "government" aren't the same. I've just edited this article to reflect the traditional understanding of the difference. In a republic, "We the People" insofar as we act as voters, are the state. Our elevcted officials and their appointees are the government. That, at any rate, is the pertinent theory.

This article deserves a category but I'm hard pressed to divine an appropriate one--Hooperbloob 04:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Inclusion of Iroquois democracy

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the discussion of the development of democratic institutions in North America needs to be expanded by adding the Iroquois tribes who developed the concept of democratic governance independently of Greece or the age of reason. It shows bias and adherence to outdated assumptions about Native Americans. This is evident in the many searches I had to use before I found the citation. Spraygal109 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic