By their direct attempts in interfering in the state or manipulating its supporters (voters in a democracy), good luck protecting from them without an organised society, call that collective force/entity “state” or whatever you want…
Groups can organize without a leader. Rules can exist without rulers. It is silly to say the only thing protecting us from the wealthy is the state, when the wealthy are far more protected by the state.
But, I do understand what you’re saying. What happens when someone breaks the rules? Who enforces those rules? But when the wealthy capture the state (and that is ultimately the goal of the wealthy), the rules will still be unenforceable against them. So, I’d say it kinda fundamentally falls apart eventually.
But, that’s not an answer. The real answer is that it is on the citizens to topple corrupt states, but they don’t necessarily need a state to make that possible.
I demand the lack of allegiance to a corrupt state, is a kidnapped entity that does not represent anymore the colectivity, it must be topped, but how would that correction be enforced if not by other collectively organised entities, even if ephemeral?
I believe a state can dynamically represent the common will of the society given the correct tools and vigilance.
Spontaneous will can easily fall apart by a few organised with a lot of resources, more easily than a centralised entity arisen form the colectivity of the many. Call that state or whatever, but collective coherence is fragile without some centered governance of the collective resources, which must be continuously watched by those generating it, because those few predators will continuously try to control it.
I fear that generalising that any state-like organisation must disappear will only make the things easier for those few with a lot of resources. I hope our differences here are only semantic, but those slogans seem to easily confound one thing with another…
By their direct attempts in interfering in the state or manipulating its supporters (voters in a democracy), good luck protecting from them without an organised society, call that collective force/entity “state” or whatever you want…
Groups can organize without a leader. Rules can exist without rulers. It is silly to say the only thing protecting us from the wealthy is the state, when the wealthy are far more protected by the state.
But, I do understand what you’re saying. What happens when someone breaks the rules? Who enforces those rules? But when the wealthy capture the state (and that is ultimately the goal of the wealthy), the rules will still be unenforceable against them. So, I’d say it kinda fundamentally falls apart eventually.
But, that’s not an answer. The real answer is that it is on the citizens to topple corrupt states, but they don’t necessarily need a state to make that possible.
I demand the lack of allegiance to a corrupt state, is a kidnapped entity that does not represent anymore the colectivity, it must be topped, but how would that correction be enforced if not by other collectively organised entities, even if ephemeral?
I believe a state can dynamically represent the common will of the society given the correct tools and vigilance.
Spontaneous will can easily fall apart by a few organised with a lot of resources, more easily than a centralised entity arisen form the colectivity of the many. Call that state or whatever, but collective coherence is fragile without some centered governance of the collective resources, which must be continuously watched by those generating it, because those few predators will continuously try to control it.
I fear that generalising that any state-like organisation must disappear will only make the things easier for those few with a lot of resources. I hope our differences here are only semantic, but those slogans seem to easily confound one thing with another…