TED Conversations

Mitch SMith


This conversation is closed.

Is "the state" our enemy?

I am seeing a growing trend of antipathy towards "the state".

This is coming from all sides of political discourse. But Mostly, none of it is qualified by what this "state" is.

I find that confusing.
I assumed that "the state" was a collection of "us" and that the "democracy" we support is simply a process of having representatives make laws which we agree to obey ..

SO .. let's have a look!

Is our state antithetical to our own agreement?

Please let me know what you think the "state" is and why it is your enemy?

If we can get some kind of understanding for that, then we might be able to advise our representatives. We vote for them after all .. is that just "entertainment"? Or is it real?


Closing Statement from Mitch SMith

Many thanks for those who contributed here!
The discussion has been quite inspiring.

Is "the state" our enemy?

I conclude that if we are part of the definition of the state, it cannot be our enemy.
However, if we are excluded from that definition, it could very well be our enemy.

If you observe that the state is separate from you, then you must decide:
1. if you need to defend yourself against it.
2. If you should negotiate an allegence with it.
3. If you should join with it.
4. If you should attack it.
5. If you should create another state which includes you in its definition.

I would suspect that a state will resist attempts by outsiders to change it - this is the same as an attack and will be dealt with accordingly.

I will point out that western "democracies" have included the mechanism of electoral terms. If such terms were treated as an opportunity to dissolve and re-form a state, then inclusion would be the first principle.

Is the Western state our enemy? No - the enemy lies in the political parties who have corrupted the power of the electoral term - this is where the enemy should be met.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 5 2013: The agreement on further statements might be difficult to different personal experiences.

    As I see now, voting for your candidate have a very little difference. Candidates or parties have very little difference between each other despite of their titles or "beliefs". All that we get is bravado. An circus where side with most money to fund their activities have a massive advantage over another. Masses are often stupid and ignorant. Often people are won over with "shiny political commercials" or most bizarre statements about their bright future. I have witnessed on many occasions that people aren't taking their voting seriously. They will just vote from feelings, for a joke or even "just to see that happens if X would won". People no longer place any responsibility on their vote. Sense of duty have extincted. Serious debates or analysis are often ignored by masses due to their laziness. Even if they would watch them, there are no guarantee that they would "get it". Stupidity, intellectual laziness and today's culture made a large part of our voters unable to understand any deeper meaning beyond that is given to them. Furthermore, voters memory tend to be last just a month or two, making situation even worse. Sheer majority of masses overwhelm all sophisticated opinions about politics thus making a democracy fools rule at best.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.