# Origins of the State
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721
**Category:** Society, Government, and Economics
**Created:** [April 8, 2008, 1:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721 "2008-04-08T13:10:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2008, 1:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/1 "2008-04-08T13:10:15Z")
I would like to first tie up lose ends:
The State is everyone.
The issue is the definition of everyone. One State can have different states within it’s borders or have sub-states. A sub-state differs from a state within a state in that a sub-state can share a common interest alongside the state that contains it. A state within a state however is like an enemy in the mist and aims to supplant the State in which it exist. The State can co-exist with a sub-state, but cannot tolerate willingly a state-within-itself.
Now, we say that the issue is the definition of everyone. “Every”, can be defined as: All of a countable group, without exception. “One” can be defined as: Being a single member or element of a group, category, or kind. When I say then that the State is everyone, “everyone” stands as the entirety of members of a group, category or kind without exception. The State is the entirety of it’s members. Does that mean that every creature within the borders of the State is a member of the State. Absolutely not, but that does not make it inconsistent as a definition because the State is the determinant of membership, not the creature. We are all human beings of course, but a State is not humanity. The human race is divided into several groups, societies. “Humanity” is not the sole defining quality by which to catalogue human groups. It is not in fact or else there would be no States to speak of.
States are defined from without and from within. States are convenient, but not conventional or mere tools. There is a vital quality to the State. We are born into States. Cyrene has given this some thought and in fact his post on the thread “What is the State?” was the inspiring muse I used in this new thread. The most basic human social group or animal social group, is the family unit, whether this includes a father or not. A child, on it’s own cannot survive. A woman on her own may die at childbirth, that is the price of a larger brain that is off-set by the sociality of the species.
There is an individuality in everyone of us, but this comes after an initial social identity. If we believe some psychological models, the child evolves a sense of self, a process of detachment from his mother. I think that however one cuts it, one will always find that for one reason or another, this social aspect is definitive in all stages of life.
Now is a family a State? Depends on what you define the state as, but I believe that it is a mini-state (not to be confused with Nozick’s minimal state). A family is the entirety of it’s members. That does not mean, of course that each member is equal. Some standard always exists that differentiates the members, including age and sex. Now, I mentioned that the State is a vital thing, by that I mean that the State is not mathematically defined or apt to logical pronunciations of “If A then B”. I have already alluded to the subjective aspect of the State. At it’s very minimun it can be a family, but a family can grow to be widened into a clan and a clan into a tribe and so on and so forth, all the while retaining this idea or a subjective common identity. Each member has levels of alligeance. First to the most immediate family, such as mother and siblings, then uncles, cousings and so forth, until you have a wider sense of identity with the clan or tribe. Often the larger group’s interests co-incide with the most inmediate group, but not always. In this developing conflict of interests some groups become split, like a cell in the human body, but this is not a necessary outcome of conflict. Like I said, the State is internally and externally defined. The interactions of the larger group define the internal interactions as well. Case in point. America has a multiple party political system, a system of checks and balances. This helps negotiate the different interest of diverse groups within the larger whole. But when that larger whole is attacked, as it was in 2001, the priorities are exchanged: The internal interests of the parts give way to the external interests of the whole. At that point we can understand the saying:“My country, right or wrong”.
The external circumstances affect the evolution of social groups in increments until we arrive at a modern state. This is to say that inter-group dynamics, clan agains clan, tribe against tribe, each internally defined as Us versus Them creates a sticky situation, serves as a social glue. In this struggle for survival, groups avoid their differences and aaly themselves to others, once seen as different, now of necessity seen as Us in order to confront an Other. This mixes diverse social groups into a whole and for a time, it chugs along. Once the Other has been defeated or is a less imminent threat, as we are now seeing in the US, prior conflicts are renewed and old divisions are revisited as the struggle for existence continues but at an internal level.
States have dealt with conflict in the same manner, I think, that families deal with their problems. Within the group, where each is a member, the parent serves as a regulatory agent where the children bring forth their sibling conflict to be resolved. The parent is the final authority and her judgement is accepted, if only provisionally, by both children. As long, and only so long, as the child can see a pattern he can manage in the parent he will follow the rules set by the parent. What I mean is that the child that is chastised then looks to revise his behaviour. If the revised behaviour is still chastised then frustration enters his mind and the stage is set for rebellion. A member of the State, to follow the metaphor, supports a state that is beneficial in some way in the long run, if only as a promise. Once faith is lost in the effectiveness of the State to deliver a sound solution to internal conflict, the member no longer can afford to rely on the State. EDoes this happens? Of course. When this happens a state within a state has been created. When the State loses it’s impartiality it has in view two different things, one it recognizes as itself and another it sees as other than itself. This other is like an enemy, but within. Now, often the State can afford to maintain the tension, the subjugation without conssession, but in the event it loses this capacity, the internal pressures created by a multi-state condition (not sub-states that can be federated) follow predictable outcomes.
The State then is everyone, though this “everyone” is a fuzzy concept that changes in size more than the borders of a Sovereign State. When you look at the television, the news from around the world, think of what I have written here and see if it fits when applied to the emergence of states, like Kosovo, or elections of dubious value, like in Zimbawe, to the tragedies in Iraq and the creation of a EU and the considerations made for an addition. Think of China, touted as becoming more open, a member of the world community, the host of the Olympics 2008…how was that done? I hope to have found a possible answer with which I leave you.
---
### Author:  [@1Samuel8](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/1Samuel8)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2008, 2:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/2 "2008-04-08T14:09:09Z")
> [@omar](#):
>
> how was that done?
By brute force.
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2008, 2:38pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/3 "2008-04-08T14:38:02Z")
You don’t even understand what “that” meant. I knew my post would be misunderstood by you…
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/4 "2008-04-10T16:33:15Z")
To be blunt and short I see the state as the religion of cult-ure.
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/5 "2008-04-10T17:02:09Z")
> [@Joker](#):
>
> To be blunt and short I see the state as the religion of cult-ure.
In the end, what isn’t “religious”? Science is a religion, humanism is a religion, politics are religious; the list is long…according to some…It seems as if the only thing left free from Religion is religion itself…at least after Catholiscism ceased to dominate Western Culture. And by the way, what is “cult-ure”?
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/6 "2008-04-10T17:33:33Z")
> [@omar](#):
>
> > [@Joker](#):
> >
> > To be blunt and short I see the state as the religion of cult-ure.
>
> In the end, what isn’t “religious”? Science is a religion, humanism is a religion, politics are religious; the list is long…according to some…It seems as if the only thing left free from Religion is religion itself…at least after Catholiscism ceased to dominate Western Culture. And by the way, what is “cult-ure”?
Culture to me is a cult like symbolism of concepts and ideals used to gain subjects ( People) under it’s whim.
In the eyes of the cult ( culture) many great deal of people become fodder for it’s so called historical glory through vanity or it’s notions of “progress”.
> [@](#):
>
> In the end, what isn’t “religious”? Science is a religion, humanism is a religion, politics are religious; the list is long…according to some…It seems as if the only thing left free from Religion is religion itself…at least after Catholiscism ceased to dominate Western Culture.
Nah… Religion isn’t free either.
I do however understand your sentiments. What isn’t a religion? I like to think that egoism and instinct isn’t.
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/7 "2008-04-10T19:26:59Z")
Hello Joker:
— Culture to me is a cult like symbolism of concepts and ideals used to gain subjects ( People) under it’s whim.
O- I think that cults are vehicles of culture too. Culture is not just about cults…there is something else. Culture are patterns of human activity and it’s meaning. There is low and high culture, Church culture, Pop culture, American culture…all that this word alludes to, I think, is just what people do and how they understand what they do. A cult also has a culture, a pattern of behaviour and a structure of symbols. Culture comes from the effort to pass along what one has learned to a next generation. For this reason, culture is very ordinary.
But, it is not used to gain subjects…it can be, but not solely…it can also be used to exclude subjects (people). This is the dynamic component you see in High/Low culture…there is an eternal race to exclude, to rise above, to be special in more than just your opinion but in objective fashion and manner.
— In the eyes of the cult ( culture) many great deal of people become fodder for it’s so called historical glory through vanity or it’s notions of “progress”.
O- “Progress” is the outcome of conflict, actual or propagandistic. A Culture reaches new highs as one group successfully excludes another. An aristocrat’s culture was measured by the exclusivity of his acts over the plebes. Victorian Culture was measured by it’s encounter with savage cultures that accentuated the exclusivity of British behaviours or culture. The merging of all people in a common humanity would be the loss of mechanisms of cultural evolution. Hence: the ugly American…
---
### Author:  [@Impious](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Impious)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2008, 3:18pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/8 "2008-04-14T15:18:06Z")
> [@omar](#):
>
> I would like to first tie up lose ends:
> The State is everyone.
‘The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”’ - Nietzsche, TSZ, Of the New Idol.
Are you sure you weren’t fooled, omar? The state is a form that denies the truths of all peoples and herds. Under it, God is dead. Nothing is as cold as the state.
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2008, 11:35am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/9 "2008-04-15T11:35:35Z")
> [@Impious](#):
>
> > [@omar](#):
> >
> > I would like to first tie up lose ends:
> > The State is everyone.
>
> ‘The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”’ - Nietzsche, TSZ, Of the New Idol.
>
> Are you sure you weren’t fooled, omar? The state is a form that denies the truths of all peoples and herds. Under it, God is dead. Nothing is as cold as the state.
Just because Nietzsche said it does not mean it is a universal truth that has been revealed. I particularly do not agree with Nietzsche’s conception of the birth of a state…too Darwinistic. If the State was indeed the “coldest of all cold monsters” then one would have to find fantastic answers to explain it’s very existence…as Nietzsche did. It lies…but Nietzsche saw the Truth. It is not the State that says “I am the People”, but a govt or ruling party. The State is simply the State, which is equivalent to saying, a people. Last but not least, as from within also from without: “I am the People” need not be said at all. Someone, some power, another State will say: You are the People. It is the politics of representation.
Now, if you could answer a few questions of mine:
1- How does the state deny the truths of all people?
2- Since you affirm this, then what is the “truth of all peoples and herds”?
3- Who says that when God is dead there can be a state? Think about it. Herds require a shepperd. The state dies without a god or idol.
There are two statements here that are leading me towards an assumption, though I am not sure whether it is warranted. Perhaps you can help.
You agree with Nietzsche in that the State says: “I, the state, am the people”. Then you say that: “Under it God is dead.” Are you by any chance thinking here about communism? Communist govt claims to perform the will of the People and is often insistent on a form of atheism. Is this what you have in mind?
---
### Author:  [@Impious](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Impious)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2008, 12:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/10 "2008-04-15T12:23:05Z")
> [@omar](#):
>
> Now, if you could answer a few questions of mine:
> 1- How does the state deny the truths of all people?
> 2- Since you affirm this, then what is the “truth of all peoples and herds”?
> 3- Who says that when God is dead there can be a state? Think about it. Herds require a shepperd. The state dies without a god or idol.
1. Firstly, the state denies the truths of all herds and people[size=150]s[/size], plural. It does this by devaluing all such truths.
2. Every people has a common truth (as does every herd). This is the condition for God.
3. The state is the new idol (in the absense of God).
> [@](#):
>
> There are two statements here that are leading me towards an assumption, though I am not sure whether it is warranted. Perhaps you can help.
> You agree with Nietzsche in that the State says: “I, the state, am the people”. Then you say that: “Under it God is dead.” Are you by any chance thinking here about communism? Communist govt claims to perform the will of the People and is often insistent on a form of atheism. Is this what you have in mind?
As I mentioned above, the condition for God is a group of people with a common truth (such as a people or a herd). The state denies all such truths. Hence when the state is supreme, the condition for God is not met.
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2008, 1:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/11 "2008-04-15T13:09:59Z")
Hello Impious:
— 1. Firstly, the state denies the truths of all herds and peoples, plural. It does this by devaluing all such truths.
O- Give an example of this theoretical insight. Also, it seems that you have a very abstract conception of the state, while mine is more organic and vitalistic. How do you define the state? This may help me understand what, if any, truths it must deny or devalue.
— 2. Every people has a common truth (as does every herd). This is the condition for God.
O- And it is, in my opinion, also the condition of State. Any state, upon examination, reveals competing interests but also some social “glue”, some defining element that allows for the struggle of interest while maintaining some form of unity that is the basis of the State. A group without a common “truth”, a common identity, religious, racial, geographical or ideological will fail or struggle to create and maintain a single state. look at Iraq, but also look at the former soviet territories.
— 3. The state is the new idol (in the absense of God).
O- The state imitates the mechanisms that give rise to a god, but who is to decide between you and me which is god and which is idol?
— As I mentioned above, the condition for God is a group of people with a common truth (such as a people or a herd). The state denies all such truths. Hence when the state is supreme, the condition for God is not met.
O- Was the Holy Roman Empire not a state? Is theocracy not a form of state govt? The state does not by necessity denies or devalues “such truths”. In fact, Constantine profited from “such truths” to establish and maintain his state and before him Paganism also provided the myths for the state. Rather than deny, the state has an interest in maintaining “such truths”. What the state worries about constantly is that the ruling minority must be affrimed by the myth. The Guardian, the Shepperd, must be evident and supported by the same “truths” which solidify the “herd”…again we need only look at Christianity and it’s close relationship with the head of state. It is when the State is supreme that the condition for god or gods is met. Do we need to study the history of Israel and the hebrews? Perhaps you have better examples…
---
### Author:  [@Impious](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Impious)
#### Post date: [April 15, 2008, 8:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/12 "2008-04-15T20:54:48Z")
> [@omar](#):
>
> Hello Impious:
>
> — 1. Firstly, the state denies the truths of all herds and peoples, plural. It does this by devaluing all such truths.
> O- Give an example of this theoretical insight. Also, it seems that you have a very abstract conception of the state, while mine is more organic and vitalistic. How do you define the state? This may help me understand what, if any, truths it must deny or devalue.
The state: A form of government under which the necessary man is safe.
> [@](#):
>
> — 2. Every people has a common truth (as does every herd). This is the condition for God.
> O- And it is, in my opinion, also the condition of State. Any state, upon examination, reveals competing interests but also some social “glue”, some defining element that allows for the struggle of interest while maintaining some form of unity that is the basis of the State. A group without a common “truth”, a common identity, religious, racial, geographical or ideological will fail or struggle to create and maintain a single state. look at Iraq, but also look at the former soviet territories.
By ‘a common truth’ I don’t mean common ethnicity, I mean a commonality in the functioning of the Self.
I think you use the word ‘state’ too often; the word ‘nation’ usually suffices.
> [@](#):
>
> — 3. The state is the new idol (in the absense of God).
> O- The state imitates the mechanisms that give rise to a god, but who is to decide between you and me which is god and which is idol?
God is a multiplicity of idols.
> [@](#):
>
> — As I mentioned above, the condition for God is a group of people with a common truth (such as a people or a herd). The state denies all such truths. Hence when the state is supreme, the condition for God is not met.
> O- Was the Holy Roman Empire not a state? Is theocracy not a form of state govt? The state does not by necessity denies or devalues “such truths”. In fact, Constantine profited from “such truths” to establish and maintain his state and before him Paganism also provided the myths for the state. Rather than deny, the state has an interest in maintaining “such truths”. What the state worries about constantly is that the ruling minority must be affrimed by the myth. The Guardian, the Shepperd, must be evident and supported by the same “truths” which solidify the “herd”…again we need only look at Christianity and it’s close relationship with the head of state.
The Holy Roman Empire was not a state, it was the homeland of the Christian people.
> [@](#):
>
> It is when the State is supreme that the condition for god or gods is met. Do we need to study the history of Israel and the hebrews? Perhaps you have better examples…
Again, Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. It is not a state.
You hear the state speak and subsequently pronounce it holy. But what is it saying? For a start, nothing but lies. More importantly, it speaks with the coldest voice because it fails to truly love. Under the state the necessary man is safe but not happy.
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 16, 2008, 12:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/13 "2008-04-16T12:23:47Z")
> [@Impious](#):
>
> > [@omar](#):
> >
> > Hello Impious:
> >
> > — 1. Firstly, the state denies the truths of all herds and peoples, plural. It does this by devaluing all such truths.
> > O- Give an example of this theoretical insight. Also, it seems that you have a very abstract conception of the state, while mine is more organic and vitalistic. How do you define the state? This may help me understand what, if any, truths it must deny or devalue.
>
> The state: A form of government under which the necessary man is safe.
> O- So the state is a form of goverment. Now what is goverment? You mention safety. This is too utilitarian for my taste and ignores the sportive/creative (Ortega y Gasset) aspect of a political association. Safety in numbers is a by-product of a natural quirk in our evolution as a social-species. A man’s safety is secondary to a new born’s safety and to the safety of a delivering mother.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > — 2. Every people has a common truth (as does every herd). This is the condition for God.
> > O- And it is, in my opinion, also the condition of State. Any state, upon examination, reveals competing interests but also some social “glue”, some defining element that allows for the struggle of interest while maintaining some form of unity that is the basis of the State. A group without a common “truth”, a common identity, religious, racial, geographical or ideological will fail or struggle to create and maintain a single state. look at Iraq, but also look at the former soviet territories.
>
> By ‘a common truth’ I don’t mean common ethnicity, I mean a commonality in the functioning of the Self.
> I think you use the word ‘state’ too often; the word ‘nation’ usually suffices.
> O- Sometimes the term becomes “nation-states”. The nation state is the precursor of a democratic state. My use of “state”, as a concept, is based on the idea that state designates actually a society, or postulated society or united group. Nation-state is defined as:“a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.”…“‘Nation’ refers rather to the population within, sharing a common culture, language, and ethnicity with a strong historical continuity. This manifests itself in most members in a sentiment of collective, communal identity. When the two concepts, ‘nation’ and ‘state’ are combined, this creates an enormously compelling mixture of legitimacy and efficiency for governing elites.”…“A common strategy of elites in building a sense of internal cohesiveness is in creating strong enemy images from outside or within the society. It is often this feature that causes dynamic instability for nation-states in the world system.”
> Now a “society” is defined as:"The totality of social relationships among humans. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
> Human societies, I hold, are the precursors of nations and nations the precursors of states. To understand states, their origins and prepetuity, you have to look at human organizations, societies, sharing mutual interests, real or apparent(Which stabs in the heart the utilitarian approach), sharing institutions and culture. Defense of an individual from another within the group naturally leads to the development of judicial, or simplu judges, elders perhaps, who settle disputes with minimal impact to group fitness, because societies have to compete with other societies and their main reason of being is protection of groups. As stated above, a state is defined not just from within but from without, in it’s interaction with an Other/Enemy/Them etc. A society, becomes a people with a common govt, or “nation”. Now, I consider this as a micro-evolution, that is, as the adjustment of the social arragement to the current conditions. Govt is not some new aspect in human life, but an amplified but already existing aspect of human life. From my perspective, then, “state” is a loaded term, whose study reveals a connection to social instincts in man as a species. A “state”, or “govt” or “nation” or whatever other word you want to interpose, DID NOT COME TO EXIST as a response to reasoned considerations about the utility of protection, but as an exuberant exageration of a natural impulse in a social animal, or, in your perspective, a “herd” animal.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > — 3. The state is the new idol (in the absense of God).
> > O- The state imitates the mechanisms that give rise to a god, but who is to decide between you and me which is god and which is idol?
>
> God is a multiplicity of idols.
> O- So the state is the new idol in the absense of a multiplicity of idols? That is not a revolution, then, but a reform, which is my point.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > — As I mentioned above, the condition for God is a group of people with a common truth (such as a people or a herd). The state denies all such truths. Hence when the state is supreme, the condition for God is not met.
> > O- Was the Holy Roman Empire not a state? Is theocracy not a form of state govt? The state does not by necessity denies or devalues “such truths”. In fact, Constantine profited from “such truths” to establish and maintain his state and before him Paganism also provided the myths for the state. Rather than deny, the state has an interest in maintaining “such truths”. What the state worries about constantly is that the ruling minority must be affrimed by the myth. The Guardian, the Shepperd, must be evident and supported by the same “truths” which solidify the “herd”…again we need only look at Christianity and it’s close relationship with the head of state.
>
> The Holy Roman Empire was not a state, it was the homeland of the Christian people.
> O- First let me revisit your opinion: “The state: A form of government under which the necessary man is safe”. Is this not true of the Roman Republic, or the Empire or the Carloginian Empire or the succesor to this list, the Holy Roman Empire? Was the “necessary” man, (who knows what makes a man necessary and the other unnecessary?) not “safe”?
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > It is when the State is supreme that the condition for god or gods is met. Do we need to study the history of Israel and the hebrews? Perhaps you have better examples…
>
> Again, Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. It is not a state.
> O- What is a “homeland”, in your opinion? And by the way, there was a jewish people, but there never was a “Christian people”, and Christian Church Fathers did not have a homeland other than Heaven.
>
> You hear the state speak and subsequently pronounce it holy. But what is it saying? For a start, nothing but lies. More importantly, it speaks with the coldest voice because it fails to truly love. Under the state the necessary man is safe but not happy.
O- Safe but not happy…maybe in some states. In other states a man is unhappy without a state, without protection, without safety. Happiness, my point is, is derivative of a sense of safety, at least in a great majority of human beings. Of course, you may have an ideal of happiness that is willing to sacrifice it’s safety.
---
### Author:  [@more\_or\_less](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/more_or_less)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2008, 4:16pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/14 "2008-04-21T16:16:40Z")
> [@omar](#):
>
> I would like to first tie up lose ends:
> The State is everyone.
> The issue is the definition of everyone.
Which begs the question “is everyone then part of the State?” Slaves one and all, to our creation, are we?
What if everyone does not concur, then what of the state?
Best to look up the meaning and origins of the word polis, for a more fitting construction imho.
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2008, 4:30pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/15 "2008-04-21T16:30:19Z")
> [@more or less](#):
>
> > [@omar](#):
> >
> > I would like to first tie up lose ends:
> > The State is everyone.
> > The issue is the definition of everyone.
>
> Which begs the question “is everyone then part of the State?” Slaves one and all, to our creation, are we?
>
> What if everyone does not concur, then what of the state?
>
> Best to look up the meaning and origins of the word polis, for a more fitting construction imho.
If everyone does not concur? There is no “if”. And the consequence is the multiplication of states, and within each there is a different version of “everyone”.
---
### Author:  [@Juggernaut](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Juggernaut)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2008, 1:45am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/16 "2008-04-22T01:45:34Z")
> [@more or less](#):
>
> > [@omar](#):
> >
> > I would like to first tie up lose ends:
> > The State is everyone.
> > The issue is the definition of everyone.
>
> Which begs the question “is everyone then part of the State?” Slaves one and all, to our creation, are we?
>
> What if everyone does not concur, then what of the state?
>
> Best to look up the meaning and origins of the word polis, for a more fitting construction imho.
Without class division there is no state, and the first class divsion was the forced submission of women to men, and from there states have only gotten worse. In one sense it is a problem of definition. The state is like every other form of relationship, and it is always for those in the relationship to define it in the total course of their lives. It is like asking what is marriage. Marriage is a form of relationship, and there the similarity between marriages ends because every married person defines and redifines marriage as a relationship as they go, each couple after their own fashion. Trying to understand a certain form called the state sheds little light on the relationships inside which may be quite peaceful and fair, or not.
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2008, 11:41am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/17 "2008-04-22T11:41:20Z")
Jugger, that was a very good analogy. Thanks.
---
### Author:  [@Juggernaut](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Juggernaut)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2008, 1:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/18 "2008-04-22T13:57:52Z")
> [@omar](#):
>
> Jugger, that was a very good analogy. Thanks.
Yawr welcome.
---
### Author:  [@davids04](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/davids04)
#### Post date: [April 22, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/19 "2008-04-22T17:46:38Z")
Omar,
One thing that would be interesting to explore is the difference between the state and government.
One difference is that the state remains while governments change. The English monarchy embodies the state while its government is the day to day operation of the state.
However, I think that there is something to the idea that the state came to be through brut force. For instance, the state of the Soviet Union and China came to be through brut force. And in many respects so did America. The state has been forged and molded into being by extraordinary forces, such as wars and revolutions.
Thanks
---
### Author:  [@omar](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/omar)
#### Post date: [April 23, 2008, 12:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721/20 "2008-04-23T12:43:21Z")
> [@davids04](#):
>
> Omar,
>
> One thing that would be interesting to explore is the difference between the state and government.
>
> One difference is that the state remains while governments change. The English monarchy embodies the state while its government is the day to day operation of the state.
>
> However, I think that there is something to the idea that the state came to be through brut force. For instance, the state of the Soviet Union and China came to be through brut force. And in many respects so did America. The state has been forged and molded into being by extraordinary forces, such as wars and revolutions.
>
> Thanks
I agree. States are not the same as govt. I have been saying that, but my argument can suffer the supposition that they are and keep on ticking, that is why I do not make much of an issue since it detracts from the core of the argument.
There is an element of violence, yes, but the point here is that it is cohesive violence so that the violence demonstrates the existence of a sort of state prior to the conquest of land. Land and state are not the same. Subjugation and State are not the same. Just because the Soviets absorbed a lot of independent states did not translate into a naturally aspired state; Rather it was a super state with a bunch of sub-states under it…not even a federation.
The crucial thing is the idea of identity. Can a conquering horde generate an idea in those conquered that they somehow belong together? The answer to that determines whether the state will emerge from a forced occupation or if the two groups will remain master and slave, each competing against the other and undermining any cohesive idea of a state.
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/origins-of-the-state/20721.md?page=2)