I was going to ask these questions in the philosophy forums, but I figure as they mostly have to do with politics I'd just post them here. What is the ideal relation between the individual and the state? Should the individual serve the state or the state serve the individual? How might one go about implementing the above in the best way possible? When is a man justified in disobeying the dictates of the state? To what extent should the majority rule and thereby act against the freedom of the minorities? When is a man justified in rebelling against the established order and creating a new state? What are the relative merits of the different economic systems?
Too many questions first thing in the morning... I'll try a couple. The "state" should be a tool for use by the individuals. That's pretty much all the same thing as my last answer... This is a HUGE question if a person really tries to think out all the steps, but MY bottom line is JUST DO IT. The GOAL needs to change first, then the details will come as needed. When it infringes on his freedoms. By the way, freedoms don't include destructive and negative things. Freedom is a POSITIVE thing and can not exist within negativity. Why should majority rule act against minorities?
Do you even need a state? We're not dogs who cling to a master (well.... most are) The state serves the individual You do not even need a state. But you can do it by force or politcally, depending on your goals. Whenever he feels like it. So are you saying that majority rule should be enforced by the strong-arm of the state? Like, "We vote that you're going to die." There's certain situations where it *might* be acceptable, such as a quick life-or death decision. But policies like this shouldn't be forced into law. Whenever the state does not embody the will of the people. Who cares what you call it. Capitalists can lead to corruption, Communists can lead to corruption, and Anarchists can be corrupt. Call it what you want but it's the merit of the people that counts.
