TED Conversations

Mitch SMith

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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?

+1
Share:

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 10 2013: First, the "state" is a tool that is under utilized for whatever reasons there may be --ideological, mythological, political; an extension of the body-politic. The "state" is an enemy inasmuch a gun or car or phone is an enemy.

    Second, to have the capability of advising our representatives, the body-politic does need a language of representational definitions that can be accepted and understood at both the political-level and the citizen-level. For example, a "sustainable infrastructure irrelevant of economy" could indicate a necessary taxation and expense schedule that does describe how survival for the nation and its citizens are relatively guaranteed in a way that is not present today. This example also does indicate the tacit benefit of transparency in spending and expenses in order to devise a thorough and accountable plan or program. In total, what the body-politic and the "state" may need is a program for long-term efforts so that the discussions that occur in the domestic home and in the political arena coincide quite well indeed: a New American Plan.

    Third, in regard to your opinion about voting as "entertainment" or "real", a management position is obviously necessary when the many are concerned. The opacity of political affluence in general (media and standard operating procedures) may indicate a passive desire to forget or forgo the responsibility of such a job, implying a trust that is oftentimes questioned by someone such as yourself. The desire to impose an entertaining characteristic is simply too subjective a consideration given the objective nature of the job despite the rhetoric infused in political hubris, often necessary to fulfill said opacity --national security and so forth. I would rather ask, is national security a problem if the nation's spending habits were disclosed entirely, so that the discussions would be less rhetorical and more pragmatic?
    • thumb
      Feb 11 2013: Nice points Tony!

      The definitions of words become critically important.
      "Body Politic" suggests a body. But to know that body one must identify the "selfness"
      of it.
      This is especially important for those whose mouths get teh word "morality" in them.

      I like this idea: "sustainable infrastructure irrelevant of economy".
      My take is that it comes included in the human package - and we need to first understand what's in the box before we try to sell it ;)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.