Don DeBar mentions the State, personifying its actions, as if it were
a human individual. However, there is no such thing as 'The State',
in an individual sense. It is only human beings who act, who make
decisions, who have agendas, who carry out those agendas. Therefore,
I don't understand the perspective of 'the State' vs the individual,
nor the statement "the State will serve social interests".

Further, I don't see how any large population can exist, in a
particular geographic area, without organization, specialization of
tasks, and a central decision-making group.  In a small population,
of about 30 odd people - you can have consensual decision-making-
ratified by the 'authority' of custom, tradition. In a large
population - you can't have such consensus. One hundred thousand
people are not going to sit down together and debate an issue - and I
mean together, and the same issue.  This central decision-making
group need not be tyrannical but can be democratic. That is, a
'State' is not inherently wrong.

I suggest a read-through of Plato's Republic vs Aristotle's Politics.
In the latter, he criticizes Plato's rigid centralist govt, in favour
of a pragmatic and reflexive democracy - but both are 'state'
systems. The older I get, the more I see that most of the things we
argue about today, have been discussed by many, over all the ages,
with the same worries,  - and even, the same conclusions.

As for J. Garelli's comment about 'altruism', the Greeks warned us
many times about the dangers of 'hubris' or arrogance. This arises
when we forget that we are human, conceptual beings and therefore,
moulded beings - and finite and fallible.
I don't think that the answer is to get rid of the State and let
individuals be supposedly free. First - an isolate individual can't
exist; it takes at least 7-10 years of socialization for an
individual to be even partly self-sufficient (and much longer in the
industrial economies). By that time, socialization has moulded that
person and they are not as flexible as proponents of individualism
suggest. Essentially, I am saying that I don't understand the concept
of the binary frame of State vs Individual,  with the suggestion that
one is evil and the other is bad. I don't see how the 'state' - or
group, or commonality/socialization - can ever be separated from the
identity of the individual.

Again, I would compare it with Chomsky's idea of competence and
performance. The one is entwined within the other.


Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University          Phone:  (819)822.9600
                                      Ext. 2424
Lennoxville, Quebec          Fax:    (819)822.9661
Canada  JIM 1Z7