This is one of the rare occaisions that I disagree with Nietzsche’s Zarathustra.
In ‘Of The New Idol’ Nietzsche has Zarathustra say that all states are bad. I disagree. There have been examples of good states in the past (Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome to name two), and no doubt there’ll be more in the future. Let me make it clear: I do not disagree with Zarathustra, but rather with Nietzsche’s depiction of him- to be honest, I think Nietzsche fell in a trap.
His castigation of the state in that aphorism may have been to do with modern states - that they don’t have the balls to admit they want to rule overs its people and other peoples, whereas the nobility of the two states you mention may have been more straight forward with its people and opponents?
A relatively good state for me would be one of chaos without structure where everyone has the freedom to be violent or cooperative in suffering the consequences of both actions equally with no regrets or restraint.
Much like we see in animal behavior.
( My opinion feel free to disagree with me.)
As for the myth of the ideal government state since when has there ever been a accurate or good one? 
The problem is with this ‘state’ is that it could only exist for a short period of time. It would go one of two ways, the stronger would end up ruling, enforcing their will upon the weaker, or the weak would mass together and have protection in numbers. Survival would depend upon cooperation at a very basic level, provision of food/water, shelter, protection. Very few would be capable of surviving individually. Those who took what they wanted through violence would ultimately be disposed off, through either revenge or a desire to prevent further violence. The problem with governments is that they can’t please everyone all the time, so the idea of a ‘perfect’ government is impossible.
I agree with Hume on the fact that there’s just too many people in the human population to support a free rule of people on an individual level.
The strong would unite to herd the weaker.
That has already happened and the world as it exists is the result. Capitalism is the most efficient tool in present history.
Anyone in favour of a state is just looking for protection.
You want to be spared the stress of defending yourselves.
You may think you are an ubermensch, or some other transcendental being above the herd, but you fear living alone amongst them, so you run away towards another herd for protection.
There is no freedom to be had with a group.
Lose this idea of a state …
Pretty much.
‘The strong have always had to defend themselves from the weak.’ - Nietzsche
‘So the weak became strong and the strong became weak.’ - Me
Destroy the weak - me.
Or make them strong. But don’t commit the same error they have.
Through abstracts, novelties, expiriments,fantasies,theatrics,deceptions and elaborate symbolisms have the weak constructed a stranglehold on the world but I assure everybody on this website it is only a temporary.
Even now all the creations that the weak pride themselves on is deteriorating at a enormous rate in every new generation.
( It has been going on since the beginning of the industrial era historically.)
The future will be a interesting one, when over time a enough people will come to realize who is bringing on their suffering.
When enough people have suffered tremendously in this world unto agony they will look around to see who is causing their suffering and upon realization they will come to know who is bringing their downfall and at that moment nature will re-merge setting itself back in motion again where predators will become free to act out their will to power once again.
What’s wrong with collective security? Not everyone can defend themselves from predators, whether that be wild animals in a state of nature or con men in today’s society. Those who can provide protection offer it to the community in exchange for the things they cannot achieve.
That would be everyone. Strength is subjective. Who decides what is considered strong? No human is without weakness.
Again, you are using your definition of strong/weak. One could argue that strength was the ability to control, which according to you is what the ‘weak’ are doing.
And mankind will again set itself up to defend themselves against those who act out their wills with brute force. Force can never control ultimately, nor can deception.
Exactly. It is a product of weakness and incapability.
One cannot do something, so one barters ones own qualities (if any; sometimes being merely a piece of meat is quality enough …) to gain what one lacks.
It is dependence.
The weak band together into a herd and derive security from this co-dependence. They begin to feel safe, unthreatened. They even begin to persuade eachother that that such things as “rights” exist.
It is a crutch; they do it only because they have to. No one would tolerate such stifling conditions were it not necessary for their continued survival.
I don’t know about you, but I’m gettibg tired of people trying to win arguments with the “subjective” card.
Of course it’s subjective; it’s just a word one applies to the external, the meaning of which can be diverse - even to one person. It’s what you make it mean that is of consequence.
I value, and describe as strong, he who is independent, intolerant, courageous, possesses a rational, questioning mind and who can beat the living snot out of the average man on the street, should the whim take him.
How about yourself?
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
My point is that even the strong who protect them are dependent upon society. No man can survive on his own. So yes someone might be strong enough to protect himself all the time, but he could not provide himself with everything else he needs to survive. Those capable of providing protection are just as weak individually as those not. Collective security in a society provides everyone with what they need.
I don’t buy that. Sure our society isn’t perfect, and it could be improved, but essentially humans are social creatures and will always band together into some form of society. So maybe we haven’t nailed the right one yet, but society is a natural product of human activities, as we need companionship and interaction with other humans.
All I’m trying to point out with that point is that unless there is some overseeing judge, no one has any right to declare their definition of strong as the best.
You’re last quality hardly seems to be something derived from a courageous and rational mind. The problem with whimsical beatings is that if one person can carry out one, then he must accept that he can equally be on the receiving end of one. If this isn’t something he wants then it isn’t rational to do it to someone else.
I would be tempted to describe someone who recognises their own weakness but strives to survive in spite of it as strong. However I don’t have a definitive answer for this.
The problem is that you are judging people based on some human definition, and labelling them inferior because they don’t meet the necessary standards. That is a slippery slope which could easily be turned on anyone. You can’t value some human life, but not other. It is all or nothing.
Some can, some can’t. Natural selection ensures that those most suited to the present environment survive.
An authority figure? 
Valuations are human inventions.
As are morals, ethics, laws and the whole long etc of human behaviourial rules.
Recognising them as such gives one the freedom to determine for oneself what is valued - to create new values.
It does not require courage to participate in conflict? It does not require rationality to triumph in said conflict?
If this hypothetical person is unable to defend himself, then he must be prepared to face the consequences …
You would not seek to overcome these weaknesses? You would accept them?
What the hell else could I do?
I am well aware that human subjective valuation may differ from one individual to another. We both are evidence of this.
Meaningless statement.
To put it in a way you might understand; Am I to value equally the child rapist and the charity-worker?
Way to go, Apaosha!
We have to stop agreeing like this. It’s getting … creepy.
Great minds think alike, and equally corrupt ones too. 
Techincally no one can as they would die out, but yes maybe some men could provide themselves with food, shelter, warmth, but they could not protect themselves 24/7. Hence there is always the possibility of some predator or rival killing them whilst they slept, which serves to show that collective protection in the form of a society is more effective at providing protection.
And whilst it is not a need essential to survival, man is a social creature and he has social needs. Any man living on his own would miss the interaction of society, meaning it would not be an attractive option for the large majority.
This means that no one can place more value on one than the other without justification, which seems to be what you are doing
If you are attacking a common man on the street on a whim as you suggested, then no it doesn’t require courage, in fact it is possibly the opposite of courageous, which is why I suggested the two qualities don’t sit well together. Similarly with rationality. Rational thinking would suggest that if you participate in conflicts of this nature you are more likely to be on the recieving end of violence yourself, either through revenge attacks or someone trying to stop you. The two qualities are at odds with each other.
I wonder if you would take the same line if you were in the victim’s shoes. However, by this reasoning if the strong cannot defend themselves against the collective force of the weak, then they too must be perpared to accept the consequences, that is society.
I stated that the person recognises their weakness, but strives to survive in spite of them. This doesn’t suggest they simply accept them. If it were necessary for my survival to overcome my weakness then yes I would, as that is what I suggested is strength. If my weakness was something I can survive and function without I wouldn’t worry myself with them in the sense that it was not necessarily for me to be ‘weakness’ free. I can’t play American Football. This is a weakness. However I have no desire to play American Football, it is not essentially to my survival, so I do not concern myself with this. If however I could not read, I would strive to over come this weakness as it would be very difficult in today’s society to function without literacy.
The problem is though when one person/group start to enforce or champion their valuation as superior. This is how hate groups start.
I don’t think it is meaningless. I am not valuing the acts of the rapist or the charity worker, but valuing their life. It is not a contradiction to value a persons life, but condemn the acts they do. If I want my life to be valued I have to equally value everyone elses life for it to be justified. Nothing gives me the justification to value only some peoples life but not others.