10-14-2024, 12:47 AM
Let's begin with
The State, a distinctly human endeavor
We in the west have a particularly myopic view of the concept of "the state." In most reference material you will find endless references to the Greeks of old, as if the rest of the world had no value as a historical reference to the idea. This western bias often occludes the root of the question... which is
"What is the ideal which moved human groups from the happenstance of a "tribe," to the organized level of codified sovereignty known as a "state?"
Tribes happen, states are crafted.
I suggest that the idea of a state is an extension of personal sovereignty, the singular reality that encompasses all human life.
Each individual is the source of both its own perceptions, and its own subsequent goals. That creates a paradigm where each individual must not only recognize that reality in others, but also negotiate the ignorance of what can be expected of anyone else.
The circumstance of tribe, or specific human group, is never a choice.
Internal collective management of tribes, however orchestrated, makes necessary a set of rules and instructions to maintain and support the group (or even tribe) as a whole. This serves stable continuity and cohesion of conduct in individuals. Whether manifested as tradition, or taboos, all rules serve something external to the individual.
But it seems to often engender a sense of imposition in members... to which some simply acquiesce willingly, and other chafed and resist, or even violently rebel.
No tribe has ever been truly hermetic; they splinter members, and even adopt outsiders into the body of the tribe. Tribes have been "created" by those who have coalesced together after leaving their points of origin. Tribes can change dramatically over time. States are similar.
A state became the 'tribe' that was actually created by thought and reason, rather than circumstances of birth.
It is ironic that across the globe and across history, states became useful for those embracing "traditional" roles of leadership and power, relying on hereditary tradition to maintain elevated importance to the group - only to have the group eventually balk against the very tradition that gave birth to the state and reject the idea of sovereign royals, family lineages, and special contrivances to isolate and protect such roles in society.
States were created in Greece centered around the "polis," the larger less coherent gathering of varied groups... the Greek propensity to rationalize and offer consensus of reason made it endure well, for a short time. But the city-state was never the apex of human gathering. Today's states make such constructs as a city-state seem tiny, quaint, and effectively unmanageable or workable at larger scales.
A state is a collection of individuals all in agreement over their collective civic identity. Their personal sovereignty is extended to a larger conceptual state identity. It is both a cooperative expression of free will, and a protection from 'non-state' eventualities. It requires an organized effort to maintain, let alone expand, and its rationalization is ideally shared among most members towards that end.
In order to maintain a state it requires rules, a body of law... and the authority to use them to mitigate circumstances that threaten the state's existence. Notice I said the "the state's existence" --- not the political body in charge, not the leader or king; not the 'controlling' cabal or it's minions... but instead the state itself... it's an important distinction... one often betrayed by individuals.
But the state is where the human complexities start... social order is connected to it inextricably... otherwise we are all just victims of circumstances imposed by others.
With this in mind, I can continue further, if there is interest...
The State, a distinctly human endeavor
We in the west have a particularly myopic view of the concept of "the state." In most reference material you will find endless references to the Greeks of old, as if the rest of the world had no value as a historical reference to the idea. This western bias often occludes the root of the question... which is
"What is the ideal which moved human groups from the happenstance of a "tribe," to the organized level of codified sovereignty known as a "state?"
Tribes happen, states are crafted.
I suggest that the idea of a state is an extension of personal sovereignty, the singular reality that encompasses all human life.
Each individual is the source of both its own perceptions, and its own subsequent goals. That creates a paradigm where each individual must not only recognize that reality in others, but also negotiate the ignorance of what can be expected of anyone else.
The circumstance of tribe, or specific human group, is never a choice.
Internal collective management of tribes, however orchestrated, makes necessary a set of rules and instructions to maintain and support the group (or even tribe) as a whole. This serves stable continuity and cohesion of conduct in individuals. Whether manifested as tradition, or taboos, all rules serve something external to the individual.
But it seems to often engender a sense of imposition in members... to which some simply acquiesce willingly, and other chafed and resist, or even violently rebel.
No tribe has ever been truly hermetic; they splinter members, and even adopt outsiders into the body of the tribe. Tribes have been "created" by those who have coalesced together after leaving their points of origin. Tribes can change dramatically over time. States are similar.
A state became the 'tribe' that was actually created by thought and reason, rather than circumstances of birth.
It is ironic that across the globe and across history, states became useful for those embracing "traditional" roles of leadership and power, relying on hereditary tradition to maintain elevated importance to the group - only to have the group eventually balk against the very tradition that gave birth to the state and reject the idea of sovereign royals, family lineages, and special contrivances to isolate and protect such roles in society.
States were created in Greece centered around the "polis," the larger less coherent gathering of varied groups... the Greek propensity to rationalize and offer consensus of reason made it endure well, for a short time. But the city-state was never the apex of human gathering. Today's states make such constructs as a city-state seem tiny, quaint, and effectively unmanageable or workable at larger scales.
A state is a collection of individuals all in agreement over their collective civic identity. Their personal sovereignty is extended to a larger conceptual state identity. It is both a cooperative expression of free will, and a protection from 'non-state' eventualities. It requires an organized effort to maintain, let alone expand, and its rationalization is ideally shared among most members towards that end.
In order to maintain a state it requires rules, a body of law... and the authority to use them to mitigate circumstances that threaten the state's existence. Notice I said the "the state's existence" --- not the political body in charge, not the leader or king; not the 'controlling' cabal or it's minions... but instead the state itself... it's an important distinction... one often betrayed by individuals.
But the state is where the human complexities start... social order is connected to it inextricably... otherwise we are all just victims of circumstances imposed by others.
With this in mind, I can continue further, if there is interest...
