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: As I have often saw, most people just love to blame someone else for their mistakes. Same goes and with all their problems. As you can see, if people's problems are external (rise of oil prices, military draft and etc) they will try put blame on government. New problems arise as old ones diminishes and cycle of negative emotions toward government continues to grow. Over time, they simply add up, there is often no "good" side of being ruled. We take that we are given for granted and ask for more without an appreciation of that we currently have.

    Due to nature of politics there quite much place left for certain kind of incompetence. Also, far deeper problem are low and medium-grade government workers who often face little to no personal standards requirements for their job. Sadly, they job is arguably most important since they enforce and support policies. They are responsible for running the government. It's they, not small elite at the top who are responsible for decisive laws usage. Because of them, we see government as being "cold" and "bullish", "unfriendly" or even corrupted. Their failings to understand the meaning behind laws and weight of bureaucracy further corrupts the system.
    From personal experience I know well, that if you answer others people "communications" with stoic patience and friendliness and goodwill, you will likely "touch" person with whom you're dealing with and often you will earn its respect. With that, I doubt that there would be any anti-government sentiments if bulk of basis of low and medium grade government officials would do their jobs well beyond of narrow requirements of their role.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.