Pages

Thursday, March 25, 2021

When One No Longer Believes In The State

 At what point does one lose one's belief in the existence of one's state?

Is it something like a bad first date, when in the midst of the salad course you realize that this is really going nowhere but now, having ordered, you are committed to the entire meal? ("Really?  Collecting mold and fungi.  How interesting..."<signals waiter for another drink>).

Or is it more like the moment when twenty years into the career or marriage, you realize that things are going nowhere at this point and more of the same is not going to solve anything? ("No, really it is not you.  It is me.").

The moment comes for all states at some point:  The Roman Empire, The Hapsburg Empire, Somalia, Russia/The Soviet Union/The Commonwealth of Independent States.  Czechoslovakia.  Yugoslavia.  Our 19th and 20th century constructs of states as immovable items that are fixed in size and territory is somewhat of a historical aberration.  In reality, borders and control have been much more fluid in large parts of history than what we (or really, state governments) like to believe.

But a moment comes, a moment when suddenly "the state" is no longer the thing that you thought it was.

I suppose for me, this has been building for some time.  But I have effectively reached the point that while I live "here" and am a citizen of "here" (and as such, will continue to pay may taxes and obey the laws at the moment), my heart and loyalty are no longer "here".  

The state could continue to exist.  Or completely break apart.  And I would not care either way, really.

Part of the benefit of the state - beyond a shared identity - is that there are benefits:  economic, social, philosophical, rights.  When those benefits fail to outweigh the issues and pains of living in the state, the reason for the state begins to disappear.

If I no longer really share an identity with my fellow "citizens" (which I really do not in a lot of meaningful ways), if I no longer benefit from my financial inputs (that stimulus package and the proposed infrastructure package will have to be paid for by someone and with acurrency that is not in the process of debasing), when my ability to believe things begins to be questioned and looked down upon, and when the government begins to have doubts about me because I have questions about them and their philosophy and beliefs, then I am not really reaping benefits from the state.

At that point, what is this state really for?  And why should it continue to exist?

20 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:09 AM

    When the State refuses to take care of its citizens and prefers to use taxes collected to maintain itself instead, that is my definition of breaking point. When it makes laws which protect the people with influence rather than the people who really pay is another. Asking them to 'Say It Like You Mean It' doesn't even help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cannot argue with you. When the state is more concerned with maintaining itself than it citizens, then it has become something which has lost all moorings and control as it is the most important thing that it knows.

      Delete
  2. These are the question a thinking man asks. These are the questions that haunt decent people...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think so STxAR. I certainly wish it would haunt more people than it seems to.

      Delete
    2. +1 to both of you.

      Delete
  3. And when the State decides that it should import "new people" and immediately grant them services from funds into which the "old people" have paid all of their lives, one wonders if one has any value in the eyes of the State.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's known as "buying votes with taxpayer money..."

      Delete
    2. Sbrgirl, that is quite a thing, is it not? Along with the concept that everyone else should just be okay with it.

      Pete, Bread and Circuses, just of another kind.

      Delete
  4. Long ago, I realized that the biggest thing I can influence is not the national or state governments but my local county government and that has been where I have put any efforts towards. Other than that, my love of state only refers to the geographical location where my roots and family are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair Ed. Really the only influence we can definitively have is at the local level. I guess it is just at one time, I grew up with the concept of a "country" (really, a state), but have seen that whittled down to a very small area of concern.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps part of it is I'm from Iowa. We just never have had any sort of state pride. Mostly we correct people that we aren't Idaho when they mention growing potatoes and tell people that we are between Minnesota and Missouri when they don't know where it is. Those that come from states like Texas or Georgia or California that I have met all seem to have more state pride for whatever the reason is.

      Delete
    3. Ed, to be clear, when I use the word "State" I am referring to the political geographic definition, which is a defined area which has 1) Territory; and 2) Autonomous authority. That said - yes, other states have a lot of pride. Trust me, Texas may outstrip them all. Californians are proud of there state, but not enthusiastic about it. You cannot get away from Texas flags in Texas.

      Delete
  5. The State is not only not protecting it's citizens, it is actively trying to destroy them. What are the most effective counter measures? Withdrawal or Counter Attack? We are in no position of power compared to the vast array of official state mechanisms. I propose to withdraw as much support as possible and to develop unofficial mechanisms of power. The gangs in big cities operate outside of official mechanisms and do so in direct opposition to the official levers of power. Working for cash or barter is the ideal solution on an individual level. Collaborating with a small group of family or close confidants on a group level will prove to be a useful skill to develop for mutual protection. This state is no longer a failed state, it is a stumbling walking zombie, intent on destruction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just So, I have had the same impression. It strikes me that the state will strike far harder at its own citizens than it will against foreign enemies because it the power to do so.

      As to counter measures, I wish I had a better solution. Part of me firmly believes that the state cannot go on much longer, simply because of the economic mess we are rapidly creating for ourselves will make it an ineffective entity. Local, as you suggest, is better, as is being as "untied" to the system as one can be.

      I like the image of the shambling zombie, moving long after it has died. It describes things rather nicely.

      Delete
  6. Question is, if "the state" fails, what does it become? History tells us again and again "You're not going to like the answer."

    I still believe in the CONCEPT of America. Judging from the people I talk to, I'm far from being alone. The question I put to you folks is; Do you want to protect what we have, or deal with what comes next. ...What is going through my mind would be called "revolution" or "insurrection" by "the state" or the MSM, when it's in fact "Setting things right again..."

    Too many died for what "the state" is trying to destroy. I cannot allow myself to let America die on my watch...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pete, the options are not grand, to be sure. History has shown that failed states seldom peaceably spawn other states.

      I like to believe in the concepts that my country once had: Freedom in many senses of the word. Limited government. But I can believe in those things and still accept that the thing the state I currently live in is none of those things.

      If there would be a renewal, I wonder, what would it look like? Violence seldom begets anything lovely from its use.

      Delete
  7. From H. L. Mencken’s 1919 Prejudices (First Series), in full: “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” Even when that "slitting" is symbolic, it's appropriately applied to your question. The State, like any other created thing, cannot help but be transient in nature. Only humans insist that a temporary creation must be permanent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reverend Paul, I love that quote of Mencken's. I find myself feeling it more and more now.

      The state is, as you say, a created thing that throughout history - from the Mesopotamians to the Mayas to the Chinese of the Warring Kingdoms to Rome, believed would last forever. Thousands died in their cause. Lives were spent on schemes of power and love and glory - all to become fodder for the historian and the archaeologist. We are no different; we just pretend to think we are.

      Delete
  8. For me that point is where your gov't enacts legislation, and your response can only be "NO".

    Most folks will hold their nose and go along with decisions by the state that they don't really agree with, because they are good citizens, everyone has to get along, and sacrifices have to be made toward that. But there comes a point where they start legislating things that aren't good for you, or your neighbour or state or country... and all you can do is refuse to comply. You don't care about the threats from police or lawmakers, you don't care about the press or public opinion - your morals, ethics and principles are on the line and you have to move to protect them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glen, I think you are right. And I think we are (more quickly than I had imagined) rapidly reaching that point.

      Delete

Comments are welcome (and necessary, for good conversation). If you could take the time to be kind and not practice profanity, it would be appreciated. Thanks for posting!