The frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

A state is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

States may be sovereign. Many states are federated states which participate in a federal union.^[1] Some states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state.^[2] The state can also be used to refer to the secular branches of government within a state, often as a manner of contrasting them with churches and civilian institutions (civil society).

Definitional issues[link]

There is no academic consensus on the most appropriate definition of the state.^[3] The term "state" refers to a set of different, but interrelated and often overlapping, theories about a certain range of political phenomena.^[4] The act of defining the term can be seen as part of an ideological conflict, because different definitions lead to different theories of state function, and as a result validate different political strategies.^[5]

The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's,^{[6][7][8][9][10]} which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.^[11][12] General categories of state institutions include administrative bureaucracies, legal systems, and military or religious organizations.^[13]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a state is "a an organized political community under one government; a commonwealth; a nation. b such a community forming part of a federal republic, esp the United States of America".^[1]

Types of states[link]

States may be classified as sovereign if they are not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. Other states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state.^[1][14] Many states are federated states which participate in a federal union. A federated state is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of a federation.^[15] Such states differ from sovereign states, in that they have transferred a portion of their sovereign powers to a federal government.^[1]

The state and government[link]

The concept of the state can be distinguished from the concept of government. The government is the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, that controls the state apparatus at a given time.^[16][17][18] That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.^[18]

Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making, and are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole. Their function is to enforce existing laws, legislate new ones, and arbitrate conflicts via their monopoly on violence. In some societies, this group is often a self-perpetuating or hereditary class. In other societies, such as democracies, the political roles remain, but there is frequent turnover of the people actually filling the positions.^[19]

States and nation-states[link]

States can also be distinguished from the concept of a "nation", which refers to a large geographical area, and the people therein who perceive themselves as having a common identity.^[20]

The state and civil society[link]

In the classical thought the state was identified with political society and civil society as a form of political community, while the modern thought distinguished the nation state as a political society from civil society as a form of economic society.^[21] Thus in the modern thought the state is contrasted with civil society.^[22][23][24]

The man versus the state[link]

English philosopher, sociologist, biologist and writer Herbert Spencer wrote of the many aspects of the character of the state as opposed to the character of man in his book The Man Versus The State. In it, Spencer details almost a Shakespearean academic analysis of the standoff and the consequences of interrelationships between the state and men who live under it.

Antonio Gramsci believed that civil society is the primary locus of political activity because it is where all forms of "identity formation, ideological struggle, the activities of intellectuals, and the construction of hegemony take place." and that civil society was the nexus connecting the economic and political sphere. Arising out of the collective actions of civil society is what Gramsci calls "political society", which Gramsci differentiates from the notion of the state as a polity. He stated that politics was not a "one-way process of political management" but, rather, that the activities of civil organizations conditioned the activities of political parties and state institutions, and were conditioned by them in turn.^[25][26] Louis Althusser argued that civil organizations such as church, schools, and the family are part of an "ideological state apparatus" which complements the "repressive state apparatus" (such as police and military) in reproducing social relations.^[27][28][29]

Jürgen Habermas, spoke of a public sphere that was distinct from both the economic and political sphere.^[30]

Given the role that many social groups have in in the development of public policy and the extensive connections between state bureaucracies and other institutions, it has become increasingly difficult to identify the boundaries of the state. Privatization, nationalization, and the creation of new regulatory bodies also change the boundaries of the state in relation to society. Often the nature of quasi-autonomous organizations is unclear, generating debate among political scientists on whether they are part of the state or civil society. Some political scientists thus prefer to speak of policy networks and decentralized governance in modern societies rather than of state bureaucracies and direct state control over policy.^[31]

Theories of state function[link]

Most political theories of the state can roughly be classified into two categories. The first are known as "liberal" or "conservative" theories, which treat capitalism as a given, and then concentrate on the function of states in capitalist society. These theories tend to see the state as a neutral entity separated from society and the economy. Marxist theories on the other hand, see politics as intimately tied in with economic relations, and emphasize the relation between economic power and political power. They see the state as a partisan instrument that primarily serves the interests of the upper class.^[18]

Anarchist[link]

IWW poster "Pyramid of the Capitalist System"(c. 1911), depicting an anti-capitalist perspective on statist/capitalist social structures

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state immoral and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.

Anarchists believe that the state is inherently an instrument of domination and repression, no matter who is in control of it. Unlike Marxists, anarchists believe that revolutionary seizure of state power should not be a political goal. They believe instead that the state apparatus should be completely dismantled, and an alternative set of social relations created, which are not based on state power at all.^[32][33]

Marxist perspective[link]

Marx and Engels were clear in that the communist goal was a classless society in which the state would have "withered away".^[34] Their views are scattered throughout the Marx/Engels Collected Works and address past or the then extant state forms from an analytical or tactical viewpoint, not future social forms, speculation about which is generally anathema to groups considering themselves Marxist but who, not having conquered the existing state power(s) are not in the situation of supplying the institutional form of an actual society. To the extent that it makes sense, there is no single "Marxist theory of state", but rather many different "Marxist" theories that have been developed by adherents of Marxism.^[35][36][37]

Marx's early writings portrayed the state as "parasitic", built upon the superstructure of the economy, and working against the public interest. He also wrote that the state mirrors class relations in society in general, acts as a regulator and repressor of class struggle, and acts as a tool of political power and domination for the ruling class.^[38] The Communist Manifesto claimed that the state is nothing more than "a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie.^[35]

For Marxist theorists, the role of the non-socialist state is determined by its function in the global capitalist order. Ralph Miliband argued that the ruling class uses the state as its instrument to dominate society by virtue of the interpersonal ties between state officials and economic elites. For Miliband, the state is dominated by an elite that comes from the same background as the capitalist class. State officials therefore share the same interests as owners of capital and are linked to them through a wide array of social, economic, and political ties.^[39]

Gramsci's theories of state emphasized that the state is only one of the institutions in society that helps maintain the hegemony of the ruling class, and that state power is bolstered by the ideological domination of the institutions of civil society, such as churches, schools, and mass media.^[40]

Pluralism[link]

Pluralists view society as a collection of individuals and groups, who are competing for political power. They then view the state as a neutral body that simply enacts the will of whichever groups dominate the electoral process.^[41] Within the pluralist tradition, Robert Dahl developed the theory of the state as a neutral arena for contending interests or its agencies as simply another set of interest groups. With power competitively arranged in society, state policy is a product of recurrent bargaining. Although pluralism recognizes the existence of inequality, it asserts that all groups have an opportunity to pressure the state. The pluralist approach suggests that the modern democratic state's actions are the result of pressures applied by a variety of organized interests. Dahl called this kind of state a polyarchy.^[42]

Pluralism has been challenged on the ground that it is not supported by empirical evidence. Citing surveys showing that the large majority of people in high leadership positions are members of the wealthy upper class, critics of pluralism claim that the state serves the interests of the upper class rather than equitably serving the interests of all social groups.^[43][44]

Postmodernists[link]

Jürgen Habermas believed that the base-superstructure framework, used by many Marxist theorists to describe the relation between the state and the economy, was overly simplistic. He felt that the modern state plays a large role in structuring the economy, by regulating economic activity and being a large-scale economic consumer/producer, and through its redistributive welfare state activities. Because of the way these activities structure the economic framework, Habermas felt that the state cannot be looked at as passively responding to economic class interests.^[45][46][47]

Michel Foucault believed that modern political theory was too state-centric, saying "Maybe, after all, the state is no more than a composite reality and a mythologized abstraction, whose importance is a lot more limited than many of us think." He thought that political theory was focusing too much on abstract institutions, and not enough on the actual practices of government. In Foucault's opinion, the state had no essence. He believed that instead of trying to understand the activities of governments by analyzing the properties of the state (a reified abstraction), political theorists should be examining changes in the practice of government to understand changes in the nature of the state.^[48][49][50]

Heavily influenced by Gramsci, Nicos Poulantzas, a Greek neo-Marxist theorist argued that capitalist states do not always act on behalf of the ruling class, and when they do, it is not necessarily the case because state officials consciously strive to do so, but because the 'structural' position of the state is configured in such a way to ensure that the long-term interests of capital are always dominant. Poulantzas' main contribution to the Marxist literature on the state was the concept of 'relative autonomy' of the state. While Poulantzas' work on 'state autonomy' has served to sharpen and specify a great deal of Marxist literature on the state, his own framework came under criticism for its 'structural functionalism.'^{[citation needed]}

State autonomy (institutionalism)[link]

State autonomy theorists believe that the state is an entity that is somehow impervious to external social and economic influence, and has interests of its own.^[51]

"New institutionalist" writings on the state, such as the works of Theda Skocpol, suggest that state actors are to an important degree autonomous. In other words, state personnel have interests of their own, which they can and do pursue independently of (at times in conflict with) actors in society. Since the state controls the means of coercion, and given the dependence of many groups in civil society on the state for achieving any goals they may espouse, state personnel can to some extent impose their own preferences on civil society.^[52]

G. William Domhoff claims that "The idea of the American state having any significant degree of autonomy from the owners and managers of banks, corporations, and agribusinesses is a theoretical mistake based in empirical inaccuracies," and cites empirical studies showing a high degree of overlap between upper-level corporate management and high-level positions in government.^[51][53]

Theories of state legitimacy[link]

States generally rely on a claim to some form of political legitimacy in order to maintain domination over their subjects.^[54][55][56]

Divine right[link]

The rise of the modern state system was closely related to changes in political thought, especially concerning the changing understanding of legitimate state power. Early modern defenders of absolutism such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin undermined the doctrine of the divine right of kings by arguing that the power of kings should be justified by reference to the people. Hobbes in particular went further and argued that political power should be justified with reference to the individual, not just to the people understood collectively. Both Hobbes and Bodin thought they were defending the power of kings, not advocating democracy, but their arguments about the nature of sovereignty were fiercely resisted by more traditional defenders of the power of kings, like Sir Robert Filmer in England, who thought that such defenses ultimately opened the way to more democratic claims.^{[citation needed]}

Rational-legal authority[link]

Max Weber identified three main sources of political legitimacy in his works. The first, legitimacy based on traditional grounds is derived from a belief that things should be as they have been in the past, and that those who defend these traditions have a legitimate claim to power. The second, legitimacy based on charismatic leadership is devotion to a leader or group that is viewed as exceptionally heroic or virtuous. The third is rational-legal authority, whereby legitimacy is derived from the belief that a certain group has been placed in power in a legal manner, and that their actions are justifiable according to a specific code of written laws. Weber believed that the modern state is characterized primarily by appeals to rational-legal authority.^[57][58][59]

Etymology[link]

The word state and its cognates in other European languages (stato in Italian, Estado in Spanish état in French, Staat in German) ultimately derive from the Latin status, meaning "condition" or "status."^[60]

With the revival of the Roman law in the 14th century in Europe, this Latin term was used to refer to the legal standing of persons (such as the various "estates of the realm" - noble, common, and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king. The word was also associated with Roman ideas (dating back to Cicero) about the "status rei publicae", the "condition of public matters". In time, the word lost its reference to particular social groups and became associated with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus of its enforcement.^[61]

In English, "state" is a contraction of the word "estate", which is similar to the old French estat and the modern French état, both of which signify that a person has status and therefore estate. The highest estates, generally those with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held power.^[54]

The early 16th century works of Machiavelli (especially The Prince) played a central role in popularizing the use of the word "state" in something similar to its modern sense.^[62]

History[link]

The earliest forms of the state emerged whenever it became possible to centralize power in a durable way. Agriculture and writing are almost everywhere associated with this process: agriculture because it allowed for the emergence of a class of people who did not have to spend most of their time providing for their own subsistence, and writing (or the equivalent of writing, like Inca quipus) because it made possible the centralization of vital information.^[63]

The first known states were created in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Central America (e.g. Mayan civilization, Inca civilization) and others, but it is only in relatively modern times that states have almost completely displaced alternative "stateless" forms of political organization of societies all over the planet.^[64] Roving bands of hunter-gatherers and even fairly sizable and complex tribal societies based on herding or agriculture have existed without any full-time specialized state organization, and these "stateless" forms of political organization have in fact prevailed for all of the prehistory and much of the history of the human species and civilization.^[64]

Initially states emerged over territories built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy.^[64] Currently, that is not always the case and there are multinational states, federated states and autonomous areas within states. Additionally multiculturalism is currently adopted in many unitary and nation states following different processes of human migration such as population transfer, political migration, immigration and emigration.^{[citation needed]}

Since the late 19th century, virtually the entirety of the world's inhabitable land has been parcelled up into areas with more or less definite borders claimed by various states. Earlier, quite large land areas had been either unclaimed or uninhabited, or inhabited by nomadic peoples who were not organised as states. However, even within present-day states there are vast areas of wilderness, like the Amazon Rainforest, which are uninhabited or inhabited solely or mostly by indigenous people (and some of them remain uncontacted). Also, there are states which do not hold de facto control over all of their claimed territory or where this control is challenged. Currently the international community comprises around 200 sovereign states, the vast majority of which are represented in the United Nations.^{[citation needed]}

Pre-historic stateless societies[link]

For most of human history, people have lived in stateless societies, characterized by a lack of concentrated authority, and the absence of large inequalities in economic and political power.

The anthropologist Robert L. Carneiro comments:

"For 99.8 percent of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. At the beginning of the Paleolithic [i.e. the stone age], the number of these autonomous political units must have been small, but by 1000 B.C. it had increased to some 600,000. Then supra-village aggregation began in earnest, and in barely three millenia the autonomous political units of the world dropped from 600,000 to 157. In the light of this trend, the continued decrease from 157 to 1 seems not only inescapable but close at hand".^[65]

The anthropologist Tim Ingold writes:

"It is not enough to observe, in a now rather dated anthropological idiom, that hunter gatherers live in 'stateless societies', as though their social lives were somehow lacking or unfinished, waiting to be completed by the evolutionary development of a state apparatus. Rather, the principal of their socialty, as Pierre Clastres has put it, is fundamentally against the state."^[66]

The Neolithic period[link]

During the Neolithic period, human societies underwent major cultural and economic changes, including the development of agriculture, the formation of sedentary societies and fixed settlements, increasing population densities, and the use of pottery and more complex tools.^[67][68]

Sedentary agriculture led to the development of property rights, patriarchal societies, domestication of plants and animals, and larger family sizes. It also provided the basis for the centralized state form^[69] by producing a large surplus of food, which created a more complex division of labor by enabling people to specialize in tasks other than food production.^[70] Early states were characterized by highly stratified societies, with a privileged and wealthy ruling class that was subordinate to a monarch. The ruling classes began to differentiate themselves through forms of architecture and other cultural practices that were different from those of the subordinate laboring classes.^[71]

In the past, it was suggested that the centralized state was developed to administer large public works systems (such as irrigation systems) and to regulate complex economies. However, modern archaeological and anthropological evidence doesn't support this thesis, pointing to the existence of several non-stratified and politically decentralized complex societies.^[72]

The state in ancient Eurasia[link]

Mesopotamia is generally considered to be the location of the earliest civilization or complex society, meaning that it contained cities, full-time division of labor, social concentration of wealth into capital, unequal distribution of wealth, ruling classes, community ties based on residency rather than kinship, long distance trade, monumental architecture, standardized forms of art and culture, writing, and mathematics and science.^[73] It was the world's first literate civilization, and formed the first sets of written laws.^[74][75] By the middle of the 4th millennium B.C., most Mesopotamian settlements were fortified, signifying that organized warfare was common.^[76]

The state in classical antiquity[link]

Painting of Roman Senators encircling Julius Caesar

Although primitive state-forms existed before the rise of the Ancient Greek empire, the Greeks were the first people known to have explicitly formulated a political philosophy of the state, and to have rationally analyzed political institutions. Prior to this, states were described and justified in terms of religious myths.^[77]

Several important political innovations of classical antiquity came from the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. The Greek city-states before the 4th century granted citizenship rights to their free population, and in Athens these rights were combined with a directly democratic form of government that was to have a long afterlife in political thought and history.

The state in the pre-Colombian Americas[link]

This section requires expansion.

The feudal state[link]

During Medieval times in Europe, the state was organized on the principle of feudalism, and the relationship between lord and vassal became central to social organization. Feudalism led to the development of greater social hierarchies.^[78]

The formalization of the struggles over taxation between the monarch and other elements of society (especially the nobility and the cities) gave rise to what is now called the Standestaat, or the state of Estates, characterized by parliaments in which key social groups negotiated with the king about legal and economic matters. These estates of the realm sometimes evolved in the direction of fully-fledged parliaments, but sometimes lost out in their struggles with the monarch, leading to greater centralization of lawmaking and military power in his hands. Beginning in the 15th century, this centralizing process gives rise to the absolutist state.^[79]

The modern state[link]

Cultural and national homogenization figured prominently in the rise of the modern state system. Since the absolutist period, states have largely been organized on a national basis. The concept of a national state, however, is not synonymous with nation state. Even in the most ethnically homogeneous societies there is not always a complete correspondence between state and nation, hence the active role often taken by the state to promote nationalism through emphasis on shared symbols and national identity.^[80]

See also[link]

• Civil society
• Civilian control of the military
• International relations
• Libertarianism
• Rule of law
• Statism

References[link]

Notes[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Barrow, Clyde W. (1993). Critical Theories of State: Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Post-Marxist. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-13714-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=t3zo8mCl580C. 
• Bobbio, Norberto (1989). Democracy and Dictatorship: The Nature and Limits of State Power. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-1813-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=4AE8ur83g8AC. 
• Cudworth, Erika (2007). The Modern State: Theories and Ideologies. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-2176-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=Pr8tAAAAYAAJ. 
• Dogan, Mattei (1992). "Conceptions of Legitimacy". In Paynter, John et al.. Encyclopedia of government and politics. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-07224-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA116. 
• Flint, Colin & Taylor, Peter (2007). Political Geography: World Economy, Nation-State, and Locality (5th ed.). Pearson/Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-196012-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=GXz9xHdHeZcC. 
• Hay, Colin (2001). "State theory". In Jones, R.J. Barry. Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy: Entries P-Z. Taylor & Francis. pp. 1469–1475. ISBN 978-0-415-24352-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=lSmU3aXWIAYC&pg=PA1469. 
• Joseph, Jonathan (2004). Social theory: an introduction. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-4277-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=ic5UOphbKHsC. 
• Malešević, Siniša (2002). Ideology, legitimacy and the new state: Yugoslavia, Serbia and Croatia. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-7146-5215-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC. 
• Nelson, Brian T. (2006). The making of the modern state: a theoretical evolution. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-7189-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=cvtYZmiOjT8C. 
• Rueschemeyer, Dietrich; Skocpol, Theda; Evans, Peter B. (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-31313-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=sYgTwHQbNAAC. 
• Salmon, Trevor C. (2008). Issues in international relations. Taylor & Francis US. ISBN 978-0-415-43126-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=ayz0kWKhKacC. 
• Sartwell, Crispin (2008). Against the state: an introduction to anarchist political theory. SUNY Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-7447-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=bk-aaMVGKO0C. 
• Scott, James C. (2009). The art of not being governed: an anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15228-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=oiLYu2-uc8IC. 
• Skinner, Quentin (1989). "The state". In Ball, T; Farr, J.; and Hanson, R.L.. Political Innovation and Conceptual Change. Cambridge University Press. pp. 90–131. ISBN 0-521-35978-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=1QrSKH_Q5M8C&pg=PA90. 
• Vincent, Andrew (1992). "Conceptions of the State". In Paynter, John et al.. Encyclopedia of government and politics. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-07224-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA48. 

Further reading[link]

• Barrow, Clyde W. (2002). "The Miliband-Poulantzas Debate: An Intellectual History". In Aronowitz, Stanley & Bratsis, Peter. Paradigm lost: state theory reconsidered. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-3293-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=occGXv3T0ycC&pg=PA3. 
• Bottomore, T. B., ed. (1991). "The State". A Dictionary of Marxist thought (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-18082-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=q4QwNP_K1pYC&pg=PA520. 
• Bratsis, Peter (2006). Everyday Life and the State. Paradigm. ISBN 978-1-59451-219-3. http://books.google.com/books?id=mh_zAAAAMAAJ. 
• Faulks, Keith (2000). "Classical Theories of the State and Civil Society". Political sociology: a critical introduction. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-2709-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=_fjCczhvWj0C&pg=PA32. 
• Feldbrugge, Ferdinand J. M., ed. (2003). The law's beginning. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-90-04-13705-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=DG_HMgPYMlMC. 
• Fisk, Milton (1989). The state and justice: an essay in political theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-38966-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=UVv1oS3afmIC. 
• Friedeburg, Robert von (2011). State Forms and State Systems in Modern Europe. Institute of European History,. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0159-2010102576. 
• Green, Penny & Ward, Tony (2009). "Violence and the State". In Coleman, Roy et al.. State, Power, Crime. SAGE. ISBN 978-1-4129-4805-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZhxIDseBcpcC&pg=PA116. 
• Hall, John A., ed. (1994). The state: critical concepts (Vol. 1 & 2). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-08683-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=EFmfJlNFEKgC. 
• Hansen, Thomas Blom & Stepputat, Finn, ed. (2001). States of imagination: ethnographic explorations of the postcolonial state. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-2798-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=pk9W2W6LCpIC. 
• Hoffman, John (1995). Beyond the state: an introductory critique. Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-1181-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=TG6OQgAACAAJ. 
• Hoffman, John (2004). Citizenship beyond the state. SAGE. ISBN 978-0-7619-4942-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=nHu8uwrBO6gC. 
• Jessop, Bob (1990). State theory: putting the Capitalist state in its place. Penn State Press. ISBN 978-0-271-00735-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=HcxBBhXjAUcC. 
• Jessop, Bob (2009). "Redesigning the State, Reorienting State Power, and Rethinking the State". In Leicht, Kevin T. & Jenkins, J. Craig. Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-68929-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=U5_HatyUydwC&pg=PA41. 
• Lefebvre, Henri (2009). Brenner, Neil & Elden, Stuart. ed. State, space, world: selected essays. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-5317-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=5cYnB3KsqdkC. 
• Long, Roderick T. & Machan, Tibor R. (2008). Anarchism/minarchism: is a government part of a free country?. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-6066-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=PUev30VZ04kC. 
• Mann, Michael (1994). "The Autonomous Power of the State: It's Origins, Mechanisms, and Results". In Hall, John A.. The State: critical concepts, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-08680-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=EFmfJlNFEKgC&pg=PA331. 
• Oppenheimer, Franz (1975). The state. Black Rose Books. ISBN 978-0-919618-59-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=_dJXaqobz4AC. 
• Poulantzas, Nicos & Camiller, Patrick (2000). State, power, socialism. Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-274-4. http://books.google.com/books?id=ejTYwLoZtY4C. 
• Sanders, John T. & Narveson, Jan (1996). For and against the state: new philosophical readings. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-8476-8165-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=7k_gBlYQwOcC. 
• Scott, James C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-07815-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=PqcPCgsr2u0C. 
• Taylor, Michael (1982). Community, anarchy, and liberty. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-27014-4. http://books.google.com/books?id=eI9xYg7CwiwC. 
• Uzgalis, William (May 5, 2007). "John Locke". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/index.html. 

This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (March 2009)

Tim Hawkins
Background information
Occupations	Singer, Songwriter, Comedian
Years active	2002-present
Website	TimHawkins.net

Tim Hawkins is a Christian comedian,^[1] songwriter, and singer, best known for parodying popular songs, such as Carrie Underwood's "Jesus Take The Wheel"^[2] and "The Candy Man" stand-up material based on marriage, homeschooling and parenting. Hawkins has released three CDs and five DVDs of his material since 2006. In 2007, Hawkins began to release his comedy on the Internet, with his videos gaining more than 50 million views on YouTube and Facebook since.

Personal life[link]

Hawkins has four children, and a wife who is winning a battle with breast cancer, which Hawkins often alludes to during a serious portion of his stand-up show. When he does this he asks the audience to pray for them. He played outfield in college for the University of Missouri.^[3]

Self Published Works[link]

• Pretty Pink Tractor (2011)
• Rock Show Comedy Tour (with Bob Smiley & John Branyan) (2011)
• INSANITIZED (2010)
• I'm No Rockstar (2009)
• Bananas II (2008)
• Full Range of Motion (2007)
• The Government Can
• Cletus Take the Reel
• Extremely Madeover
• Tuna Fish Sandwich

References[link]

External links[link]

• Official Website
• Official Store

Ron Paul
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 14th district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 1997
Preceded by	Greg Laughlin
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 22nd district
In office January 3, 1979 – January 3, 1985
Preceded by	Robert Gammage
Succeeded by	Tom DeLay
In office April 3, 1976 – January 3, 1977
Preceded by	Robert Casey
Succeeded by	Robert Gammage
Personal details
Born	Ronald Ernest Paul (1935-08-20) August 20, 1935 (age 76) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Political party	Republican Party (1976–1988, 1988–present)
Other political affiliations	Libertarian Party (1988 election)
Spouse(s)	Carol Wells
Children	Ronnie Lori Rand Robert Joy
Alma mater	Gettysburg College (B.S.) Duke University (M.D.)
Religion	Southern Baptist
Signature
Website	Congressional website Campaign website
Military service
Service/branch	United States Air Force Texas Air National Guard
Years of service	1963–1965 1965–1968
Rank	Captain[1]
This article is part of a series about Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign 2008 presidential campaign 1988 presidential campaign Political positions · Electoral history List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul Ron Paul newsletters Ron Paul bibliography

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American politician who has been the U.S. Representative for Texas's 14th congressional district, which includes Galveston, since 1997, and a three-time candidate for President of the United States, as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and currently 2012. He is an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policies, including the Military–industrial complex and the Federal Reserve, and is known for his libertarian-leaning views, often differing from his own party on certain issues.

A native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his medical degree. He served as a medical officer in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies. He became the first Representative in history to serve concurrently with a child in the Senate when his son Rand Paul was elected to the United States Senate for Kentucky in 2010.^[2]

Ron Paul has been an active writer and publisher since the late 1970s, when he created the first of several newsletters bearing his name. He has published many books, beginning with The Case for Gold (1982) and including Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (2011), End The Fed (2009), The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), Pillars of Prosperity (2008), and A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship (2007). Paul has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.^[3][4]

On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would forego seeking another term in Congress in order to focus on his presidential bid.^[5] On May 14, 2012, Paul announced that he would not be competing in any other Presidential primaries, though he is still competing for delegates in states where the primary election have already been held.^[6]

Early life, education, and medical career[link]

Ronald Ernest Paul was born on August 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh,^[7] the son of Howard Caspar Paul, who ran a small dairy company, and Margaret (née Dumont) Paul. His paternal great-grandparents emigrated from Germany, and his mother was of German and Irish ancestry.^[8][9]

As a junior at suburban Dormont High School, he was the 220-yard dash state champion.^[10] He graduated from Gettysburg College with a B.S. degree in Biology in 1957.^[10]

Paul earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke University's School of Medicine in 1961, and completed his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.^[11] Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.^[12]

Paul and his wife then relocated to Texas, where he began a private practice in obstetrics and gynecology.^[13] He refused to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments, but routinely lowered fees for patients who could not afford to pay.^[14][15]

Early congressional career (1976–1985)[link]

While still a medical resident in the 1960s, Paul was influenced by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, which caused him to read many publications by Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. He came to know economists Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard well, and credits to them his interest in the study of economics.^[16]

When President Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" by ending American participation in the Bretton Woods System, thus ending U.S. dollar's loose association with gold^[16] on August 15, 1971, Paul decided to enter politics^[17] and became a Republican candidate for the United States Congress.^[18]

Elections[link]

In 1974, incumbent Robert R. Casey defeated him for the 22nd district. President Gerald Ford later appointed Casey to direct the Federal Maritime Commission, and Paul won an April 1976 special election to the vacant office.^[19] Paul lost the next regular election to Democrat Robert Gammage by fewer than 300 votes (0.2%), but defeated Gammage in a 1978 rematch, and was reelected in 1980 and 1982.^[20] Gammage underestimated Paul's popularity among local mothers: "I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner."^[21]

Tenure[link]

Paul has served in Congress three different periods: first from 1976 to 1977, after he won a special election, then from 1979 to 1985, and finally since 1997.

In his early years, Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he blamed the Federal Reserve for inflation and spoke against the banking mismanagement that resulted in the savings and loan crisis.^[22][8] Paul argued for a return to the gold standard maintained by the US from 1873-1933, and with Senator Jesse Helms convinced the Congress to study the issue.^[16] He spoke against the reinstatement of registration for the military draft in 1980, in opposition to President Jimmy Carter and the majority of his fellow Republican members of Congress.^[23]

During his first term, Paul founded the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), a non-profit "think tank" dedicated to promoting principles of limited government and free-market economics.^[24]

Paul proposed term-limit legislation multiple times, while himself serving four terms in the House of Representatives.^[23] In 1984, he decided to retire from the House in order to run for the U.S. Senate, complaining in his House farewell address that "Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare.... It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic."^[25][26] (On Paul's departure from the House, his congressional seat was assumed by former state representative Tom DeLay, who would eventually become Speaker of the House.)^[27]

Committee assignments[link]

• House Banking Committee

1984 U.S. Senate election[link]

In 1984, Paul campaigned for the U.S. Senate, but lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm, who had switched parties the previous year from Democrat to Republican.^[28] Another candidate of the senatorial primary was Henry Grover, a conservative former state legislator who had lost the 1972 gubernatorial general election to the Democrat Dolph Briscoe, Jr.

Inter-congressional years[link]

1985–1997[link]

Following the loss of the 1984 senate race, Paul returned to his obstetrics practice and took part in a number of other business ventures.^[8][29] Along with his former congressional chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, Paul founded a for-profit enterprise, Ron Paul & Associates, Inc. (RP&A) in 1984, with Paul serving as president, Rockwell as vice president, Paul's wife Carol as secretary, and daughter Lori Pyeatt as treasurer.^[30] The company published a variety of political and investment-oriented newsletters including Ron Paul Freedom Report and Ron Paul Survival Report, and by 1993 was generating revenues in excess of $900,000.^[31][32]

Paul also co-owned a mail-order coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate the dealership after Paul resumed office in 1996.^[33][34] Paul spoke multiple times at the American Numismatic Association's 1988 convention.^[33] He worked with his Foundation for Rational Economics and Education on such projects as establishing the National Endowment for Liberty, producing the At Issue public policy series that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel and CNBC,^[24] and continuing publication of newsletters.

1988 presidential campaign[link]

Paul resigned from the Republican Party in 1987 and launched a bid for the presidency running on the Libertarian Party ticket. At the 1987 Libertarian National Convention, the party was split between a Conservative and Liberal wing. Paul represented the conservative wing, which was successful in fundraising, while the liberal wing claimed to have received ten times more (and more favorable) press coverage.^{[citation needed]} Paul argued, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."^[35][36]

In the 1988 presidential election, Paul was on the ballot in 46 States,^[37] scoring third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%).^[38] Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri, and received votes there only when written in, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch termed a "technicality".^[39]

According to Paul, his presidential campaign was about more than obtaining office; he sought to promote his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, "We're just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."^[37]

Paul considered campaigning for President during 1992,^[40] but instead chose to endorse Pat Buchanan that year, and served as an adviser to Buchanan's Republican presidential primary campaign against incumbent President George H. W. Bush.^[41]

Later congressional career (1997–present)[link]

An earlier congressional portrait of Paul

Elections[link]

1996 campaign

During 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a difficult campaign. The Republican National Committee endorsed incumbent Greg Laughlin in the primary; Paul won with assistance from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan, tax activist and publisher Steve Forbes^[8] and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan (both of whom had had presidential campaigns that year). Paul narrowly defeated Democratic attorney Charles "Lefty" Morris in the fall election, despite Morris' criticism over controversial statements in several newsletters that Ron Paul published.

1998–present

In 1998 and 2000, Paul defeated Loy Sneary, a Democratic Bay City, Texas, rice farmer and former Matagorda County judge.^[17] In the 2008 Republican primary,^[42] he defeated Friendswood city councilman Chris Peden,^[43] with over 70 percent of the vote^[44] and ran unopposed in the general election.^[45] In the 2010 Republican primary, Paul defeated three opponents with 80 percent of the vote.^[46]

On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek re-election to the House in order to pursue the 2012 presidential election.^[47][48]

Tenure[link]

Legislation

Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law – a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%.^[49] The sole measure authored by Paul that was ultimately enacted allowed for a federal customhouse to be sold to a local historic preservation society (H.R. 2121 in 2009).^[49]

By amending other legislation, he has helped prohibit funding for national identification numbers, funding for federal teacher certification,^[17] International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the U.S. military, American participation with any U.N. global tax, and surveillance of peaceful First Amendment activities by citizens.^[50]

Affiliations

Paul was honorary chairman of, and is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a political action committee that describes its goal as electing "liberty-minded, limited-government individuals".^[51] He is an initiating member of the Congressional Rural Caucus, which deals with agricultural and rural issues, and the 140-member Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus.^[52]

Committee assignments[link]

Rep. Paul serves on the following committee and subcommittees.^[53]

• Committee on Financial Services
  • Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology (Chairman)
  • Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade
• Committee on Foreign Affairs
  • Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

With the election of the 112th Congress, and a resulting GOP majority in the House, Paul became the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology starting in January 2011.^[54]

2008 presidential campaign[link]

Ron Paul being interviewed the day of the New Hampshire primary in Manchester

2008 Republican primary campaign[link]

Paul formally declared his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on March 12, 2007, on C-SPAN.^[55] Few major politicians endorsed him, and his campaign was largely ignored by traditional media.^[56] However, he attracted an intensely loyal grassroots following, in large part energized by "iconoclastic white men"^[57] interacting through internet social media.^[58][59][60] In May 2007, shortly after the first televised primary debates, the blogs search engine site Technorati.com listed Paul's name as the term most frequently searched for;^[58] and Paul's campaign claimed that Paul had more YouTube channel subscribers than Barack Obama or any other candidate for president.^[61] For a candidate who had had relatively low national name recognition prior to entering the race, Paul did surprisingly well in fundraising, taking in more money than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007, as the primary season headed into the Iowa caucuses.^[62][63]

Despite benefiting from large numbers of campaign contributions from individual donors,^[64] and the efforts of tech-savvy supporters determined to keep his name a frequent topic of discussion on the internet,^[58] over the course of the campaign Paul was unable to translate the enthusiasm of his core supporters into large enough numbers of actual primary votes to unseat his rivals.

Paul came in 5th place in both the January 4 Iowa caucuses (10% of votes cast)^[65] and the January 8 New Hampshire primary (8%).^[66] With the exception of the Nevada caucuses January 19, where he came in 2nd (14%) behind Romney (51%), he did little better through the rest of January: Michigan 4th (6%), South Carolina 5th (4%), Florida 5th (3%). On SuperTuesday, February 5, he placed 4th in almost every state, generally taking in a mere 3–6% of the votes (although he did better in the mountain states of North Dakota (21%, 3rd place) and Montana (25%, 2nd place).^[67][68]

By March, front-runner John McCain had secured enough pledged delegates to guarantee that he would win the nomination, and Romney and Huckabee had both formally withdrawn from the race. Paul, who had won no state primaries, knew that it was now mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination, as he had captured only 20^[69] – 40 pledged delegates compared to more than 1,191 for McCain, yet he refused to concede the race and said that it was unlikely that he would ultimately endorse McCain.^[70][71][72] Over the next few weeks, Paul's supporters clashed with establishment Republicans at several county and state party conventions over state party rules, the party platforms, and selection of delegates for the national convention.^[73][74][75] In one of the more dramatic moments, Nevada's state party leaders, outmaneuvered by Paul supporters at the state nominating convention, resorted to the highly unusual measure of prematurely and abruptly shutting down the convention before selecting national delegates, with a plan to reconvene at a later date.^[76][77]

On June 12, 2008, Paul finally withdrew his bid for the Republican nomination. He later said that one of the reasons he did not run in the general election as a third-party candidate, after losing the primary election, was that, as a concession to gain ballot access in certain states, he had signed legally-binding agreements to not run a third-party campaign if he lost the primary.^[78] Some of the $4 million remaining campaign contributions was invested into the new political action and advocacy group called Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty.^[79]

Refusal to endorse the Republican candidate[link]

At a September 10, 2008, press conference, Paul announced his general support of four third-party candidates: Cynthia McKinney (Green Party); Bob Barr (Libertarian Party); Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); and Ralph Nader (independent). He said that each of them had pledged to adhere to a policy of balancing budgets, bringing the troops home, defending privacy and personal liberties, and investigating the Federal Reserve. Paul also said that under no circumstances would he be endorsing either of the two dominant parties' candidates (McCain – Republican Party, or Obama – Democratic Party) because there were no real differences between them, and because neither of them, if elected, would seek to make the fundamental changes in governance that were necessary. He urged instead that, rather than contribute to the “charade” that the two-party election system had become, the voters support the third-party candidates as a protest vote, to force change in the election process.^[80][81] Later that same day, Paul gave a televised interview with Nader saying much the same again.^[82]

Two weeks later, "shocked and disappointed" that Bob Barr (the Libertarian candidate) had pulled out of attending the press conference at the last minute and had admonished Paul for remaining neutral and failing to say which specific candidate Paul would vote for in the general election, Paul released a statement saying that he had decided to endorse Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, for president.^[83]

In the November 2008 general election, Paul received 41,905 votes despite not actively campaigning.^[84][85]

2012 presidential campaign[link]

Ron Paul during his 2012 presidential election campaign in Las Vegas, Nevada.