...you say that like it meant something...? — Banno

As I have already stated, and I will continue to say: - While the people you love to belittle and degrade bring interesting content and questions to the table of debate, you glorify yourself by copying and pasting the link of an article on the forum and making a statement of two lines.

I believe that the real "whinning" here, are just those who truly have no content, and when they leave relevance, let themselves be consumed by bitterness. — Gus Lamarch

The obvious confusion in your OP is your dithering between profitable and ethical. Perhaps you might clean that up. — Banno

Here it is clearly stated to everyone that you do not know the difference between Egotism and Egoism, therefore, you did not understand anything that was said on my part.

Miserable are all those who only think about profit.
Profit - and only profit - is what made men miserable.

We can perceive beauty and admire it but perhaps stand back in awe. Perhaps the idea of desire, especially in the realm of sexuality, creates a problem in the way we can see it as addressing our own physical pleasures. A detached sense of beauty may exist as a form of inspiration. — Jack Cummins

I believe that we have consciously abandoned our ability to act and think consciously, rationally and logically over our instincts.

We exist constantly with the shadow of our wild past influencing us. The apotheosis that I refer to at the end of the images I had posted, is our ability to feel our instincts, and, by simple and mere conscious will, deny it.

What is desire, becomes beauty; what is hate, becomes honor; what is fear becomes courage, etc...

But that had been lost...

As an atheist myself since the age of about 7, I simply do not understand how theists can trust in a God given this argument. It would be much appreciated if someone would clarify a general religious stand point for me, however I just do not see that whatever I am told could disprove this argument without contradicting religious beliefs in itself. — scientia de summis

You are not the first and you will not be the last to have this realization that theism - at least, the Christian - contradicts itself in the question of the duality between Good and Evil.

Christians have debated this issue for more than 1500 years, starting with Boethius in the 6th century.

I would recommend you to research "The Problem of Evil" and begin from there, because it is a lot of content.

These are beautiful paintings. I have never seen them before, even though I have studied a certain amount of history of art. The two pictures of the women seem very contemporary, with the whole presence of light, and the two men are very unusual looking, almost like characters from gothic fantasy. — Jack Cummins

The innocent idealization of the human being is something incredible to me. The greatest virtue of art is to rationalize our instincts in such a way that we can contemplate "Beauty" while not driven by "Desire". This is something that has been lost.

They still be guilty. Not about the fact of prostitution but hypocrisy. Back in the time Church and clergy were so powerful controlling the minds of the citizens: if you do this or that God will punish you. It is inmoral
But... In the shadows they were the more sinners of all. It is interesting how you shared with us how the Roman Empire even created a law about "Christian prostitution". Well this reflects how powerful the clergy was always been. If I am enough powerful to join in the State institution I can act whatever I want and I force the jurists to make laws in my favor/ambitious.
Meanwhile the population was there thinking or feeling guilty for stealing an Orange or Chicken to just eat... — javi2541997

Fact. Christianity had only become the official religion of the Roman State thanks to its own Roman policies between the 5th and 6th centuries, which initially sought the homogeneity, stability, and union of the Empire. Constatine the Great was the first to realize the benefits that Christianity would bring to its political structure. As the historian Jacob Burckhardt, in his work, The Age of Constantine the Great, would state:

"Constantine is a scheming secularist, a politician who manipulates all parties in a quest to secure his own power. Constantine developed an interest in Christianity only after witnessing its political usefulness."

And, in a pragmatic analysis, during his long rule, Constantine, however "rotten" he was, in a "realpolitik" scenario in which he found himself, became the most successful personality, because his attachment did not allow himself to be carried away for nothing but the power he wielded.

However, that same pragmatic policy that would establish him in power, would make his dynasty end up conceiving a degenerate vision of government, which the Emperor would be "One above all" - Dominus - not for pragmatism, but for sheer legitimacy and power - as for example, Constantius II, son of Constatine -. Vision that would eventually lead the Empire itself to collapse in the next 100 years.

Christianity, thanks to Constantine, would be intertwined with the power of the imperial purple, and would decay along with the values ​​and principles of the government.

Well this text proves why in Europe slowly started a fight between protestantism/calvinists and the Curch in the coming centuries. — javi2541997

Well, mainstream Christianity - Catholicism and Orthodoxism - monopolized Europe from the fifth century to the fifteenth. That's a thousand years of absolute power. Protestantism only emerged when Christianity itself became to be secularized.

The point that I cannot understand:

"How did people accept that kind of policy, and how would the Emperor himself, in full conscience, go to promulgate something like that?"

In my mind, there are only two answers to this:

- Perversity - he consciously had some type of "want" about that kind of thing -;
- Zeal - he really thought that he was doing the will of God -.

I thought it was you that was intent upon setting the terms of the discussion. — Valentinus

My sarcasm was about the fact that he used the argument of authority to repudiate my evidence that his arguments were invalid.

Read the previous discussion, if you want to give some opinion.

Arguments based upon authority are the weakest kind. — Valentinus

Indeed, they are... But Tim doesn't appear to perceive that.

So let's imagine this is all gone. What do you have? Is that the fourth time asked? . — tim wood

@javi2541997 It is not ridiculous and a lack of respect towards us, when we have already spoken more than 5,000 words about what the Government is and what its role in society is.

Since you didn't even have the ability to have a real discussion with me, I'm sorry to inform you that you will have to look for your answers on your own. If you don't want to, feel free to not do it, our discussions will be much richer without your participation.

Thank you. Good day/Good night.

But the question to you too, which you have ignored. — tim wood

Oh no my friend, if you dare to use this argument again, I will have to use it against your bias as well.

Well, why did you refuse to prove the "Good" that the State brought during history to me? I was kind enough to let you choose the historical period. Why so shy?

With this you have departed coherence. Return when your meds have been adjusted. — tim wood

You are just no worse than Banno, because you still remain to hear the truths you don't want to accept. For that, you have my thanks.

The verdict of history seems to be that some form of government is preferable to none. And to be sure some have been better than others, but this latter not your argument. — tim wood

Well, do you want to debate the "State's historical evidence for being useful" with me? We will see how far you will be able to disagree without going into verbal aggression - which, being sincere, coming from you, does not seem to be a distant reality -.

At what point do you, the expert historian want to start? Feel free to choose the historical period. I will give you that honor.

The point here is that you can not point out anything at all. — tim wood

Indeed, but you prove yourself to be biased when you completely dismiss the rest of my argument.

I do not know where you live or how or the condition of your life, but I am pretty sure that you cannot go to bed at night, nor arise in morning without even at that experiencing some benefit of government that without government you would not have.

Of course if you want to live a mountain man in some wilderness, go to it! Although you're at least a century or two late. But you can make a go of it. Indoor plumbing? Pfft, a total government intrusion. Electricity? Running water? Clean water, or air? Infrastructure? You don't need them, for you have your stone axe. Food? How do you manage that one? Police? Medical care? Even education? None of these for you, and your life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." And without much in the way of laughs. — tim wood

Ad Hominem will only take this discussion to the garbage.

The forum seems to have a plague of "sovereign citizens".

Folk who do not see the irony of their oxymoronic title. — Banno

As I have already stated, and I will continue to say: - While the people you love to belittle and degrade bring interesting content and questions to the table of debate, you glorify yourself by copying and pasting the link of an article on the forum and making a statement of two lines.

I believe that the real "whinning" here, are just those who truly have no content, and when they leave relevance, let themselves be consumed by bitterness.

How far do you get without government? — tim wood

The discussion in question is about the "State" and not the "Government", as both are different concepts. Therefore, if you are unable to differentiate between the two, it is not my fault but of your ignorance.

In fact, what is your point? — tim wood

At this point, I really don't know what my purpose here is except to read the words of someone full of himself, however, my last point was to show you that your argument is invalid, so I'll reprise my thinking here:

"Your argument is invalid, as it is based on the concept of the State, which had been pre-established with society as a justification for the appropriation of private property of many by a few, which makes your argument "irrefutable" - irrefutability is fallacy -, since society in that we are both established, continues to take advantage of this method of oppression, and, therefore, it is obvious that I could not quote something that I want, desire, seek, etc... that is not, in some way, bound in the State."

I hope you understood, as I tried to be as clear as p.o.s.s.i.b.l.e.

"Name one thing," and you cannot or will not. — tim wood

Your answer is enough confirmation that you didn't read my last answer, or if you did, you didn't want to understand my point of view, so, therefore, I can only quote myself.

Your argument is based on the fact that society has already been pre-established by the use of the State.

"Ask that same question to a bird who was trapped in a cage for his entire life, and if it somehow managed to answer you, it would tell you: - I had no choice! If I want to eat, I must stay inside the cage. If I want to sing, I still need to stay in the cage. When I do, those who put me in here are satisfied, but when I decided to leave the cage and do the same, they promptly captured me and I was imprisoned in the cage again."

It is obvious that in order to survive in this way in which society was structured, I still have to submit to the demands of the State, however, this does not prevent me from conceiving how bad and unnecessary it is.

Therefore, your contentment with the Status Quo is not a valid argument. — Gus Lamarch

Each of you, try to identify something, anything in your lives that you want, need, or benefit from, that government, i.e., taxes, have had nothing to do with. I will be surprised if you can come up with even one single thing. — tim wood

The "Government" should not be designed for the population through the State. It should be emanated indirectly from the individual interactions.

Your argument is based on the fact that society has already been pre-established by the use of the State.

"Ask that same question to a bird who was trapped in a cage for his entire life, and if it somehow managed to answer you, it would tell you: - I had no choice! If I want to eat, I must stay inside the cage. If I want to sing, I still need to stay in the cage. When I do, those who put me in here are satisfied, but when I decided to leave the cage and do the same, they promptly captured me and I was imprisoned in the cage again."

It is obvious that in order to survive in this way in which society was structured, I still have to submit to the demands of the State, however, this does not prevent me from conceiving how bad and unnecessary it is.

Therefore, your contentment with the Status Quo is not a valid argument.

If there is anything that makes me get as close as possible to the abstraction of what is "Beautiful" and its substance. It is the romanticist, idealistic, and classicist art of the 18th and 19th centuries:









"Apotheosis In Man; Apotheosis Is Man."

And how are they robbed? — tim wood

The State is so well established that you don't even consider its act of appropriating your own property as theft.

This is not just a matter of material control, but also of psychological "indoctrination".

The point is that, the individual never needed a mediator between itself and others to achieve success. The State takes your full potential, cuts it in half, takes a part, the other piece he gives to you and exclaims: - Success!

But I guess we are not unique in the EU. Check out for example European historic countries like Poland and Hungry... everything is wrong and there are many differences. But I want to say here is that despite the social/economical problems we still “Europeans” doesn’t matter what the north European could say. — javi2541997

If your point really is about this stigma that northern Europe has with the "Mediterranean" south, in fact, they are wrong, because the whole basis that sustains European society today is, as I had already stated, the one left by the ancient Greeks and which had been vastly expanded by the Romans.

And well, the very word "Europe" is of Greek origin:

"In classical Greek mythology, Europa-Ancient Greek: Εὐρώπη, Eurṓpē-was a Phoenician princess. One view is that her name dela derives from the ancient Greek elements εὐρύς-eurús-," wide, broad "and ὤψ
- ōps, gen. ὠπός, ōpós - "eye, face, countenance", hence their composite Eurṓpē would mean "wide-gazing" or "broad of aspect". Broad has been an epithet of Earth herself."

But as I also said, humanity lives in a space of light surrounded by a sea of amnesia created by itself.

I have to admit it, my politicians destroy Spain the most they can. It is a shame. — javi2541997

Well, having a socialist Prime Minister in a Catholic kingdom is not a good strategy for achieving success.

It is legal robbery, plain and simple. — NOS4A2

Couldn't have said it better.

Apart from Madfool's discussion about women's dress, Islam doesn't seem to be discussed much on the forum. I am not sure why. — Jack Cummins

Many of the pseudophilosophers who are part of this forum, insist on not touching on the subject of Islam precisely because they know that if the dogmas of this religion are debated, their views of "multiculturalism", "globalization", "integration of non-natives", etc... falls apart, because when you know the Islamic history, and about the theology of the Quran itself, it becomes explicit that the religion is not compatible with the West.

And therefore, if this religion is not compatible with the West, and they continue to defend its entering, they are not concerned with the good of the people under the regime of the religion, but with the political power that that religion provides.

A censorship tactic on their part that is easy to perceive is the use of the concept of "Islamophobia", which does not exist. What really exists is "cultural conservatism".

Actually, I am interested in the whole discussion of comparative religion and my own thread on religion was meant to be general but the majority of people who engaged in discussion with me focused upon Christianity. Strangely, no one discussed Islam. Personally, I have never felt drawn towards Islam but I am not against it. I have friends who are Muslim and they are very open minded people. I think that stereotypes around terrorism do a lot of harm to perceptions of Islam. — Jack Cummins

The same arguments used against Christianity can be used against Islam.

If your friends are Muslims, but do not follow the words spoken in their holy book - Quran -, they are not true Muslims.

Most likely, since your friends consider themselves Muslims, they would agree with this passage from the Quran, wouldn't they:

Quran, chapter 4, verse 34, The Women:

"Men have authority over women for what God has made them superior to and because they spend their possessions to support them. Good wives are obedient and keep their virtue in the absence of their husband as God has established. Those of whom you fear rebellion, exhort them, banish them from your bed and beat them. If they obey you, do not bother them anymore. God is high and great."

I really think you don't agree with this kind of thought...

(Indeed, I'm with my Quran in hands for this discussion)

OBS: I was not focusing on your sayings Jack. I used your comment to say what I wanted to say to everyone in the forum that acts like they know everything about religion, but only criticizes Christianity.

Nowadays those barbarians are the rulers of EU... what happened? — javi2541997

We cannot take off the credit from the Germanic countries. They were the most civilized countries in the world between the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

The point is that the whole of Europe, today, is in a situation of giving up on itself.

I believe that if the West recovers the noble spirit of past centuries, hegemony could be achieved.

Some people find the Bible so comforting, but I find it the exact opposite. — Jack Cummins

Why are criticisms directed only at Christianity?

Quran, page 24, verse 5, The Dogma of Islam:

"In addition to the truths that the Muslim must believe, there are five duties that are prescribed for him: prayer, fasting, paying the tribute of the poor, pilgrimage to Mecca and holy war."

Removing passages from the Quran in which its fundamentalism and incompatibility with the West is explicit is Islamophobia, or facts? If you still have questions:

Quran, page 28, verse 4, The Style of the Quran:

"The world of the Quran is a male world. God speaks to men and speaks to him of women."

It is easy to criticize the religion that created the whole world that supports your freedom to come here to criticize that same religion.

It is difficult to criticize the strange enemy who, if catches you doing it, will end your existence.

The exercise I was hoping to go through is the recognition that all societies are far more complex than what you'd like to paint it as. I offered as support a story of cooperation, which has happened and still happens if we look at local political structures. People willingly cooperate often and what they accomplish when they do this willingly because they are inspired is far greater than the fear you suggest as a driving factor or indeed the individualism you appear to push as a solution. It's too simplistic. — Benkei

The question under discussion is the cause of why contemporary society is established as it is. I believe, and I theorize, that there was a distortion at the beginning of the civilizing process, and that we could have established ourselves in a much more successful and prosperous way in much less time if we accepted our nature - the Egoist "Government" that was the initial topic of the discussion -.

You seem to be stuck in an optimistic view of reality, and I that's not a problem, however, I affirm to you that humanity is much more mundane than you believe it to be.

The fact that humanity cooperates now, in the way that it cooperates, is a consequence of the establishment of the State at the dawn of society. What you perceive to be a "voluntary cooperation" between people, is nothing more than millennia of oppression and diminishment of the individual and of his natural will to realize himself uniquely and individually.

Your perception of reality is tied to the contemporary way of seeing the world. The Romans did not think as we do, the ancient Greeks did not conceive of the world in the same way that we do, much less the Sumerians, still, the State is there, with its elite, and its established estratification, so there is nothing to support the argument that humanity in society arose from a union between wills. If that was the case, the historical records of ancient Sumer, and of its structuring as a civilization, would not convey the image of a state sustained through fear, but one of "cooperation" between individuals.

The vocabulary you use isn't your own. — Benkei

The topic of language is another subject that we both probably disagree with.

"Language is intrinsically part of the individual who conceives and projects it into existence, and it only serves to "draw" the image of the wishes and purposes of its projector."

Language, in terms of ownership, is only capable of expressing its user's own property. For example:

"My vision";
"My opinion";
"My friend";
"My life".

Even when it is intended to communicate something that is owned by another entity, the perception of ownership is obligatorily expressed together. Example:

"It's his car";
"The idea said is from XX";
"The subject in question was conceived by XX".

Language is also capable of projecting the power battle between egos. Example:

"The idea that I just taught you, was first conceived by XX";
"The car I'm using is borrowed from that person".

(The point of my comments on language is not focused on the semantic rules of the language, but on the concept of "language" and its daily use during history)

In any case, I appreciate the somewhat more civil tone in the last few posts. — Benkei

I felt compelled to be more polite to you, because you made it clear to me that you are looking to have a debate about my philosophy, and not just looking to cause a scene in question from our past discussions.

That's accurate. Hegel spoke nonsense. Nonsense turned upside down is still nonsense. — Banno

I disagree about Hegel, but on Marx I fully agree.

A good government is one that imitates/mimics anarchy to a T if possible — TheMadFool

A "good" government is one that is not established, but emanated from the interactions of people. Anarchism has to be established, and, therefore, is just another type of State.

Finally I meet someone who understands Europe as its truest spirit. Thank you so much.
Me, as a Spaniard, I do not how to express how thankful I am to Roman and Greek culture. They completely sharped my country. We never had to forget Spain was a very important Empire with those cultures. It is just my humble opinion but I think Mediterranean empires and culture was the basic starting point to all the Occidental countries (government, sociality, economy, State, law, philosophy, etc...)
Nevertheless, sadly, we live in a paradigma where the people do not give a damn about culture and roots. Most of Americans or Asians (no them all but the most) when they hear Europe they quickly think just UK, France, Holland and Germany (provably some Nordic too though). As I named previously the "north European". Yes, they have a better economy, industry and salaries than mine. But... These do not make them more european. A Greek (Mediterranean) is European as much as a German, French, Hungarian, Croatian... It is crazy how European continent has a lot of cultures but they only put economics first. — javi2541997

Europe as a whole seems to have tired of existing based on its Christian Germanic Roman traditions. From the 18th century, until the early half of the 20th century, Europe constantly lived in a state of panic. There were armed revolts in all corners of the continent, intellectuals gathering to overthrow political regimes established more than a 1000 years ago, prejudices pre-established by the revolutionary enlightenment vision, etc...

The problem is that there is a lot of rich cultural heritage that is being brushed aside by this European resentment. This should be pursued again; a renaissance, but from the past three centuries!

I, living in the "New World", see Europe as it is today, and knowing all its history, I can only be saddened. The noble classist spirit of Europe should again be revived with pride! Not repudiated as a sin that they have committed!

I'm still not clear on what makes a state a state because I reject the notion that it necessarily must be through fear. — Benkei

Indeed, I believe that both of us have come to the conclusion that our dialogue will not cause the other to agree.

Your view of society is still, in my sincere opinion, childish, because you allow yourself to be trapped by the innocence that humanity, with power in hand, will act willingly simply because this act would benefit itself. How rational and logical this act is, humanity still is comprised of its dualistic nature. You are both instinctive and irrational as well as logical and self-conscious, and that nature makes us, overwhelmingly, act in a non-logical way.

The truth is that, for the most part, inside and outside the historical record, the choices that Man had made were justified by a simple: - Because, Yes!

Therefore, I believe that our discussion can be concluded.

Just what kind of philosopher was Karl Marx? — Shawn

Marx not only established "Communism" as a visible political ideology on the world stage, but he also developed the theory of historical materialism as an attempt to refute the economic capitalist system.

Many forget that Marx's main objective was, like so many others in his day, to prove to philosophy as a whole that it is not metaphysics that builds the world - as Hegel affirmed -, because the world is material, and what structures the perception of people's world, are their material economic structures.

As they say: - Marx turned Hegel upside down.

It is ironic that his own work, which was completely against metaphysics, would eventually be used as the basis for a utopian political metaphysical idea - Communism -. For that, you thank Lenin.

“The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.”

There are some great ideas within. He lays out some anthropological evidence for his thesis, though it may be a little outdated. But I’ve come to accept the “conquest theory” over the so-called “social contract”. — NOS4A2

The idea of "social contract" seems to me to want to justify the existence of the State and why people are subjected to it. The "conquest theory" only intends to prove its existence and describe its emergence, therefore, it is much more logical and closer to the reality of the first individuals who conceived the idea - of the State -.

We agree.

Agree with this point. Of course it is an economic prison just to make richer other countries, well better called as "elites". Since covid started the last years it has been patent how different the north/south of Europe actually is. Here is where you have a lot of "positive" prejudices to the north (they are workers, keep their money better, industries, etc...) while the south has the "negative" prejudices (lazy, poor, bad workers, insult, etc...) I remember the Dutch primer minister said about my country (Spain) we are citizens who waste the money in women and wine. It is completely a lie. Nevertheless, that is the economic trap. Sometimes I think norths European countries want the south to be poorer just to get more benefit and zero competition. This is why I do not understand how Greece and Spain are the countries which have mora labour hours despite they have the lowest income (?) interesting. — javi2541997

It is these types of humanity's attitudes that make me indignant.

Due to a lack of historical knowledge, we continue to imprison ourselves on the same mistakes again, and again, and again...

It is as if we live in a gap of light in a vast darkness as we move through time. It's ridiculous!

Today's Europe forgets that the West was founded thanks to the base of the romance countries, who are descendants of the Roman Empire, which was also sustained and developed at the expense of ancient Greece.

While this kind of irrationality takes place in Europe, we Americans forget that we owe everything and more to Europe itself, and so on.

Hegel nailed it when he said that Man is a "historical Being". Indeed, without history to structure ourselves in time, we get completely lost - as we are currently doing - in the present.

Let me ask this differently. What distinguishes a non-nomadic tribe from a State? Or a reclusive family staking out a claim of land? An individual doing this? — Benkei

You have not yet understood my conception of the State:

"The "State" is the perversity of the individual's ability to emanate the Government through Egoism."

If, hypothetically, the first "Individual" to appear, it drove the stake into the ground and said: -This is mine. This is not the creation of the State, but of private property. The State arises from the perversed perception of this same individual, who, instead of inspiring other individuals to achieve their own successes like him, and encourage them, he establishes that "whoever lives and has lived in this land, now will have to pay tribute to me", simply because he "can" do it, because he now has political power; he "murdered" the individual power of his peers.

You have to understand "fear" as being the "subjugation through the recognition of the capacity to inflict damage on the individual's most intrinsic property - the self".

“People in their natural state are basically good. But this natural innocence, however, is corrupted by the evils of society.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

This "society" that Rousseau talks about, is our society, therefore, the society already established more than 5,000 in which, instead of using our egoism rationally, we let it act instinctively.

"Through the perversity of our nature, Man is as he is: - Still being Man; a primate whose irrational shadow is always a step ahead of him."

And why do you assume fear is the driving factor instead of (the need for) cooperation behind the ordering of societies? Fear is merely a tool and a pretty useless one compared to inspiration. — Benkei

You conclude that fear as the engine of human relationships does not make sense. It is at this very point that you are completely wrong.

Fear is the vehicle by which the State structure is established. And its end is simple and pure power.

The objective of human society, within history, has never been to expand or improve human relationships, but rather to structure them in such a way that they continue to serve the structure of power, therefore, fear is the engine of itself.

That which depends on fear, will establish fear indefinitely.

So if these ancient civilisations fall within the meaning of a State, where do you draw the line? We had earlier settlements than that, that exercised some control over a geographic area? Were those states too?

Because I think that's where you run into trouble, because either you accept those as a "State" avant la lettre or you have to explain where the cut-off is and why that isn't arbitrary. And you run into trouble, because we know that the earliest settlements ("States") were certainly not predicated on fear to create order - — Benkei

Weren't the first states sustained through "fear"?

“Before the beginning of kingship in Sumer - the most ancient society that we currently have record of -, the city-states were effectively ruled by theocratic priests and religious officials; they exerted power through the use of the fear towards the gods - Sumerian gods weren't known to be "all-loving" even in the time of the Persians -. Later, this role was supplanted by kings - which the fear for the Gods became "fear towards their representation on earth" - most likely a way to preserve power even in the present and not only - as it was with the god - in the future -, but priests continued to exert great influence on Sumerian society." - Kramer, Samuel Noah (1963). The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character.

A simple logical deduction confirms that:

"If the first historical states to be registered were already based on concepts of "power through fear", a tradition that was already well established in the first historical civilizations and if these same societies descended of prehistoric states, the logical conclusion is that these prehistoric states were the ones that established the government through the state of fear, and, therefore, society was already pre-established with the concept of "State"."

One of the reasons I thought you were talking about modern states is precisely due to the use of "fear", which is reminiscent of Max Weber's definition that the State has a monopoly on violence. — Benkei

In a way, it is obvious that the Sumerians - the people I am using as an example - did not conceive of their socio-economic structure as being based on the concepts of "State" and "Fear".

The point is that with the development of Man during history, we were able to discern concepts from their practical physical aspects and from their symbolic ideas. We currently use the "State" in practice and we also know of its metaphysical existence - as a concept -. The ancients did not have the metaphysical knowledge, however, they already had total mastery of the state's practicality.

An everyday example:

"Your mother knows how to manage the household economy very well, even though she has no theoretical knowledge of how the concept of "economy "is established or works."

Many people know perfectly well the "theoricity" of things, but without its pratical knowledge, it is worthless. Practicality, on the other hand, does not necessarily need the theory to work.

But what happens to this knowledge and will when a society that has been raised to depend on the state for both education and protection is asked to protect itself? — NOS4A2

:100:

I don't think that there has ever been such a time of law and order in recorded history. People are feeling like caged animals. — Jack Cummins

This is just the taste of what true totalitarianism is.

However, I have wondered if this whole situation might have been better responded to if people had been asked to take care of themselves and others rather than it all being enforced by the government. — Jack Cummins

This is the State's concern.

If the individual matures enough to take care of itself, the purpose of the State loses yet another piece of its illusion of being needed, and therefore, it is necessary that the individual be alienated so that it continues to believe in the value and legitimacy - which it is completely null - of the State.

For the State, the more childish and innocent a population is, the more easily they can be shaped to its own liking...

This is the example of European Union (different nations and culture but they have to unite together trying to make a powerful market). — javi2541997

The European Union is an economic prison created by a State larger than the States that compose the European nations.

Initially it was a relationship of interdependence and unity thanks to the great destruction of both World Wars, however, over the course of 70 years, without a new purpose, this institution would meet its end. The point is that this same institution, already established, generated a lot of profit for the elites, and therefore, a new objective had to be be created. This same objective that currently imprisoned and made dependent the nations that decided to be part of it.

Therefore, my previous argument that "a State that is sustained by some characteristic of society, tends to eternalize that same characteristic", is correct, since the current economies are no longer concerned with the development of the economy, but with the establishment of the economy.

"The State does not need anymore that you have economic independence and economic prosperity to establish itself, on the contrary, it needs you to become poor and depend on it so that it stabilizes."

Will we work until the 70 or 75 years old? Probably.
Will it disappear the jubilation as we know today? Probably too. — javi2541997

Indeed...

However since I am very accommodating in serving, I shall charge you for your drinks — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Shall I have to beg in the streets for money?

What kind of Salon is this that you can't even drink to conceive the philosophy of the masses?

or do you think that it has to be a matter of keeping government as we know it, or do you see any scope for other possibilities in our present times? — Jack Cummins

The point is that as we are currently moving into a future "age of contradictions" - as Hegel said - or as I prefer to call it, the "Dark Ages" -, "government" as we understand it is becoming even more subjective and diluted in the vast common sense of the masses.

It is very likely that everything that we understand as "reality" today, will be totally distorted in the near future, as it happened with the transvaloration of the reality of the Romans of the Classical Age to the medieval Christians.

If reality is increasingly taking the form of the perception of the reality of the masses - which in this case, it is not a good thing, because the reality of the masses is moved and exists thanks to their perversity of the ego - the awareness and rationalization of instincts - - it is very likely that the future will take the form of "complete symbology" - where the perfect reality is projected and coveted by everyone, which justifies the decadent and degenerate material reality, as they're constantly "trying to reach the perfect reality" -, which will create complete stagnation in all aspects.

Therefore, no, there are no other possibilities for our present, since we became aware of this fall at a time when the bureaucratization of the institutions and the principles that govern these institutions is already fully structured to establish - indefinitely - those same institutions and its degenerative principles.

The "insurrection" is a - hypothetical - possibility to counter this degeneration. However, that possibility would take a long time, and many resources that are currently out of reach.