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 10 2013: I made an impression that you tend to view politics as a separate layer of our society. Like in the past political rule were only achievable to person with certain social status as it's now, a political rule is bound mostly to charisma. While your view on politics is of course an accurate one, but it doesn't mean that it's the only one or it's not flawed. For example: in ancient times, thinkers thought same about rule coming from merit or in other words- aristocratic rule. While this kind of rule is obviously very effective, but sadly it's prone to degradation. Aristocratic rule tend to end up like oligarchic one or political class become so separate from ones they rule that they no longer tend to sympathise with lower classes.

    Once our one time de facto president and further dictator, Smetona assumed control of our country via coup not, because he wanted power, but for benefit of the nation. Our society was simply not ready for democracy for many reasons. After gaining independence, nothing has changed. We would still do better with autocratic government and not with a democratic one. Considering politics as entertainers are far more true in my country. In fact, political figures are true entertainers from television or as now are popular- basketball players. Political parties invites as many popular faces as possible for popularity. This is also often true and in others, more mature societies in varying degrees. While this is of course outrageous, there is nothing that educated part of society can do. Masses will out-weight any voting until society matures enough for democracy. Sadly, this kind of rule have already costed us dear...
    • thumb
      Feb 11 2013: I Think Tony pointed out very well that the body politic requires a language known to both the leadership and the citizenry.
      What I see is a 2-tier language - a media show-pony language based on ignorance, and a language of truth that only the initiated can understand .. it's called "truth".

      My own study leads me to believe that no body politic can be sustained beyond a community of 200 individuals - and that large bloated tribes are sustained by laws - and that laws are .. essentially lies.

      I conjecture that laws may exist to regulate inter-tribal afairs, but i have not seen any decent examples of it.

      We have a failure to uinderstand the balance of individual to tribe to species - morality is many-tiered, and not as simple as religions attempt to make it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.