I would strongly advise to not confuse the “state” with the “resulting de facto inferences of the richest and most powerful few” in a “coordinated effort of a collective society to protect us from those few” with the later, because those few also want to destroy it for their own benefit… a “state” made up of all the society is the only coordinated thing protecting us from those few human predators
By their direct attempts in interfering in the state or manipulating its supporters (voters in a democracy), good luck protecting from them without an organised society, call that collective force/entity “state” or whatever you want…
Groups can organize without a leader. Rules can exist without rulers. It is silly to say the only thing protecting us from the wealthy is the state, when the wealthy are far more protected by the state.
But, I do understand what you’re saying. What happens when someone breaks the rules? Who enforces those rules? But when the wealthy capture the state (and that is ultimately the goal of the wealthy), the rules will still be unenforceable against them. So, I’d say it kinda fundamentally falls apart eventually.
But, that’s not an answer. The real answer is that it is on the citizens to topple corrupt states, but they don’t necessarily need a state to make that possible.
I would strongly advise to not confuse the “state” with the “resulting de facto inferences of the richest and most powerful few” in a “coordinated effort of a collective society to protect us from those few” with the later, because those few also want to destroy it for their own benefit… a “state” made up of all the society is the only coordinated thing protecting us from those few human predators
The rich didn’t create themselves, buddy.
By their direct attempts in interfering in the state or manipulating its supporters (voters in a democracy), good luck protecting from them without an organised society, call that collective force/entity “state” or whatever you want…
Groups can organize without a leader. Rules can exist without rulers. It is silly to say the only thing protecting us from the wealthy is the state, when the wealthy are far more protected by the state.
But, I do understand what you’re saying. What happens when someone breaks the rules? Who enforces those rules? But when the wealthy capture the state (and that is ultimately the goal of the wealthy), the rules will still be unenforceable against them. So, I’d say it kinda fundamentally falls apart eventually.
But, that’s not an answer. The real answer is that it is on the citizens to topple corrupt states, but they don’t necessarily need a state to make that possible.