>>4295684Your philosophy of what the state actually does, or should do, remains the only thing informing your argument. As Giovanni Gentile argued, the state exists to incorporate and effectively organize the competing and divergent interests in society. This is the whole reason collectivism exists, and state coercion is effective. I suppose that the argument of crime still existing despite codes and agreements preventing such things but, ultimately, two things can still be true at once. It is precisely because everyone interprets things for themselves and with each other, it is precisely because the gray line and unjust interpretations exist, that the state must, too, exist.
<reddit spaceIt is correct that a political system has not, and never will, 100% induce a permanent change for the better, but this has never been the aim of any self-respecting system. A state must embody the spirit of personal improvement for every individual (indeed, Gottfried Feder and Gentile concurred) because inducing change and authentic change are two separate things, the latter being the true expression of human life. This is precisely what national collectivism aims to achieve. Change, ultimately, is a top-down process. The worst must change before the best may be brought forth. This, again, is the aim of the state. The archaic free-for-all of the anti-statist philosophy presupposes that change is organically achieved entirely through the individual will of competing interests, but in reality true change may only be brought about if the state aims to empower each individual through national action. An individual is the totality, considered individually; the individual does not exist in a vacuum. So, totality is the target that the state must reach.
<reddit spaceUltimately, I do not believe any of this needs to be achieved by a leader who is perfect. The only pre-requisite for a leader who cares about his people and their well-being is entirely self-contained in that sentence. If half the country dislikes you, disagrees with you, what does this matter? Moreover, is this inevitable? Certainly not. When one is truly successful, when one is truly a leader, the pluralistic masses are simply that which the leader is obligated to be the steward over. This is how it has always been. Kings have always been revered, chiefs have always been obeyed, nations have always, inevitably, in the course of history, had to mobilize. A good leader and a good state require no justification but that they are good, nothing more.
Flash Archive!
