TED Conversations

Mitch SMith

TEDCRED 100+

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?

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: I would not agree that vocabulary is a problem. Political figures have their own writers who can write their speeches in depth about complex matters without taxing listeners vocabulary. While I agree that there are communication problems from government side, but I emphasize that it's an average's voters fault that politics are that they are and that for achieving better kind of rule, first we must to look to yourselves there ours fundamental flaws lies.

    In the end I would like to add, if we want a true democracy or any other similar rule, then we must agree on importance of voting. Voting cannot be something that you do light-headed or on a whim. Due to that, "serious" debates, ideologies and candidates misdoings should be a prime way of electing all political figures and sophistic methods and rhetoric should be a sing of incompetence instead of viable way of achieving popularity.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.