Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
Hi Bob,



I suspect that you are falling into the fundamental ontological error of assuming that such a "thing" as a "state" exists in and of itself. "States", whether modern or ancient, are, like all social institutions, constructed by humans as a result of various and sundry activities which may (broadly) be called "politics".

Where the "difference" comes between "convention" and "insurgency" is in the perception of a) causality of conflict and b) the development of cultural and social conventions to contain that conflict. Indeed, "democracy" is another form of "violent" political struggle with (assumed) non-kinetic cultural conventions.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that the assumption of the existence of a "state" as real in and of itself lies at the heart of much of our problem with the current conflicts we are fighting. We are required by cultural and inter-social conventions to act as if "states" exist but, when we do, we have a nasty tendency to assume they are real, and that leads to all sorts of problems and operational paradoxes when our cultural assumptions about what a "state" should be and how it should act run up against other peoples assumptions. This type of "the emperor has no clothes" realization is even more readily apparent when we kick out the existing "state" and put in a new one.


Cheers,

Marc
Was thinking about just this a couple days ago.

I've often wondered if in reality the "state" as we so often perceive it isn't one of the biggest examples of -

A solution in search of a problem.

Not dissing the institution but rather trying to recognize that just like most things states come into existence as a coordinated effort to solve various delimmas. As such once those are addressed effectively it should be fluid enough to adjust to new and more pressing issues yet quite often is too rigid to do so effectively.

The why and whats of that are fodder for all you polisci guys to work on.