i agree. being fully democratic seems sort of idealistic, you know it's not really a system for the people, it just allows its people to express themselves but still in a very limited way. i don't think any state has succeeded fully in being democratic

strong argument

i think females were able to vote in switzerland in the early 80s even though they are democratics

but you cannot please everyone?

eliminates the notion of violent superiority. so rather than controlling the system sort of works together with its people

people want to feel liberty and with being able to make the people love you you sort of give them this sense of freedom unlike having someone traditionally inherit their position without the people having any say of it

so some figures could actually play the role of "charisma" just for the benefit of having everyone by their side

the concept of charisma got much more broad as technology advances and develops since nowadays, the media kinda shapes our way of thinking and really plays with how we perceive public figures

exactly, in hindsight, ideastically it seems like the most efficient system; however, it's drawback are absolute game changers and well realistically, no bureaucracy is ever with such ease, there is always conflict

so you can never have a stable bureaucracy because corruption is not just in systems its imbedded in us as humans, you will always find a greedy individual

case of always aiming for more power (greediness)

• characteristics of bureaucracy

• characteristic of bureaucracy

decisions are made by many state officials rather than the elected individual; so control is sort of divided and it gives the stat a sense of balance of power

so even though he might be corrupt, he has the support of the people because of his charismatic aura

a problem of that could be that when u put another human being on a pedestal and make him this sort of saint, his wrongs also become his rights

priority to office rather than the individual -- prioritize the notion of system, and the law

legitimate would be the government and illegitimate would be sort of gangs, church leaders

definition of control/ authority/ power

how come?

its crazy how european countries have to balance their power because they have too much power while african countries get the concept of equal powerlessness

a system where states balance their power against each other in order to avoid war

neutral concept

essentially an international society is the association of distinct political communities which accept some common values, rules and institutions and it implies a degree of equality

similar to egypt no?

what is exercised control though? is it simply firm command, asserting dominance?

so if a government is ineffective it is not to be a state?

deeper definition to the criteria of being a state

strong point

'Internal sovereignty': the state has full control over its territory

'external sovereignty': other states recognize a state's right not to have other states interfering in its own affairs

sovereignty

seems unlikely

thats why it makes up the state

international system aims to make the notion of war attractive

international system; based on states 'balancing' their power against each other in order to avoid war (notion of balance of power)

proves my point

i think that was because war making was related and linked to many many other factors; such as economic stability, security, power and dominance. thats why it makes up the state

how come?

at that point, being a state that is in constant war, tax money was just not enough. economic strategies and the development of economies were much needed at the time

imp analysis

justified violence within the state

for war = capitalist

war is truly made for states with high economic grounds

how come?

exactly, it's not even a choice, we must protect you, if you don't pay taxes we put you in jail

as humans and citizens we are not powerful enough on our own; however, you don't pay someone to have power over you, but you pay the government for that same reason (you don't even have a choice)

so what i'm getting is; capitalism was promoted due to the need for army development, and taxes weren't enough and thats how capitalism and war makes up the state

not only claim to provide protection, but be the only institution that is able to provide such protection

disagree with commonly, here he's sort of referring to this corrupt government, fabricating a threat then taking taxes accordingly. i dont think its common i think it reelates to the idea of corrupt government or not

i dont think that they necessarily create threat, sometimes the threat is that from external sources

literally (tax money)

by comforting he leads to the idea of feeling secure and protected; while ominous sort of pokes at the idea of a threat or fearfulness

the discussion that war and violence make up the state and created institutions of taxation for it to continue being a cycle

i think by organized he means sort of systematic, you know something embedded in the political system, a known fact that no one can harm you except those protecting you

imp note!

i get the legitimacy, but why effectiveness, to whom? and to what extent? shouldn't a state remain a state even though it isn't the most powerful?

the more people, the harder it is to control them

sort of natural disaster

due to manmade factors

so a nation is not considered legitimate

so a nation could fall above the geographical standard that is held to a state, it is mainly based on its individuals

so is government and state the same thing?

Leviathan is a concept i took in intro to pols, which was extremely interesting that state sovereign leviathan made of people

this begs the question; can there be a successful state without violence?

the notion that it is human nature to commit crime and without violence there will be no order

because the state provides its citizens with safety and a sense of protection, citizens "willingly accept" the state's sovereignty because it makes them feel secure in their state

somalia may have failed as a state. however, somaliland still provides for its people and maintains sovereignty, so the idea of a 'failed state' begs the question of who really failed? for ex. the mafia provides numerous services for italy and is known for claiming control in italy, so even if italy is a failed state the mafia isn't

for some reason, this word reminds me of a toxic, traditional egyptian relationship; a husband is allowed the use of physical force with his wife, just because she is his 'wife' and he is allowed and obliged to so. however, he is also her protector and any force from the outside is considered a threat to his legitimacy 'as a man' or as a state if i'm being specific

the reason it could be accepted by the population would be that this physical use is for the 'benefit' of the state (even if it isn't) as legal force is to ensure the safety of the population so it is this shared rule between authoritarian figures and the population

what is a state?

fair point on their side, warfare and unemployment are huge factors in leaning towards illegal crimes

justifying and legislating their activity through the notion of nationalism; hence, 'honor' and uses the absence of police authority as a justification for them to take on the role of power and authority

what makes up a "failed state"