The "state" is a 15th century concept.

They changed the way of thinking but not the role since the Roman Empire. — javi2541997

I fully agree, however, the culture of power stratification is much older than the Roman Empire.

In ancient Sumer, in its earliest period - 4500 BC - the city-states of Ur, Eridu, Kish, among others, were established by a "clerical" elite.

It seems to me that the bureaucratization and extension of the State as an institution only became what it is today, so that the structure of society, which kept the minority elite in power, could continually preserve the political power of this same elite as society expanded.

The change was only noticeable in the "means" used to maintain the structure of the State, which, in its most primordial form, is "submission to the metaphysical" - the Bronze Age - which evolved to a "belonging to the State" - Classical Age -.

The abstraction that sustained political power seems to me to have undergone a "transformation" into the "Middle Ages" because "metaphysical submission" and "belonging to the State" merged into one new concept - religion.

The fact is that, the main error to be corrected - the slavery of the Individual -, contemporary humanity is incapable of correcting, given that it is the offspring of more than 5,000 years of complete distortion of the human nature - Egoism -.

Therefore, the only duty of the contemporary individual is to conceive the description of how this error can be corrected so that in the far future, humanity - the synthesis of the thesis - our era - with the antithesis - the near future "dark ages" - - might be able to develop and exist in such a way that the individual is the maximum of society - the Government itself.

The "state" is a 15th century concept. — Benkei

The point is that you are still wrong because in practice, humanity has established itself over 5,000 years in the form of the state.

Even the first historical "Empire" - Akkadian Empire - 2334 BC to 2154 - in practice, acted as a state in the modern concept. They even had borders - that in the future, kings as "Gilgamesh" would try to reconquer and become the "New Akkad" - as the medievals tried to re-establish the "Roman Empire" - -.

The empire of Akkad:



Your mistakes in focusing on the details of the terms simply to strengthen your arguments simply exist because your historical knowledge is weak.

"There is no such thing as a "philosopher", without first having a man who knows his own history"

which evolved to a "belonging to the State" - Classical Age -. — Gus Lamarch

Here is where we find for the first time the feeling of "nationalism" I belong to x State because my identity, culture, customs, language were born here. But I think it is just another trap. As you said previously it is difficult to quickly change a statement that was ruling on the world during 5,000 years.
Yes, probably today we will not die in our works for the conditions or lack of rights but... It terrifying looks like so similar like in the older ages.

Avoid selfishness in this world is so difficult. I guess it is even more difficult than ever because we are living an era where the "strongest" has "success" and doesn't matter how is living the other part. There is no empathy. Just look the vaccine of Coronavirus. I wish as you say after the pandemic change the way of thinking and then probably (just probably) make a great transition in governments

The point being that to apply the word "state" to these ancient governments, when you clearly meant it in the modern sense, is wrong because they are not what we understand states in the modern sense to be. Your example of the Greek empire is telling, because the Greek poleis continued to exist and had their own governments. So the suggestion that I don't know my history, meh, I shrug.

If your point was related to these ancient governments as well, then for the life of me I don't understand the individualistic bent of your post because that's even later. Edit: indivualism I mean, that's 17th century.

Here is where we find for the first time the feeling of "nationalism" I belong to x State because my identity, culture, customs, language were born here — javi2541997

It is with this nationalist mentality that the great civilizations of the Classical Age were structured - Roman Empire, Sassanian Persia, Aksumite Ethiopia, and the Han Dynasty -.

It is really functional when you project the ambition and purpose of an entire mass of people, in an abstract and complex concept like "the nation" or "our lands". You justify your actions in favor of strengthening the State in "good" causes for "the benefit of the structure that maintains the population".

But I think it is just another trap. — javi2541997

It is a trap, and good one.

Nowadays, this same trap has been transformed into a much more complex and rigid form through the use of the sum of:

Nationality + Religion - or in the case of the Western World, "Ideologies "-.

Yes, probably today we will not die in our works for the conditions or lack of rights — javi2541997

Yet, because I assure you that the objective of the current job market is to use you as much as possible.

A perfect historical example of what I say here, occurred during the reforms of "Diocletian" in the Roman Empire:

"Partly in response to economic pressures and in order to protect the vital functions of the state, Diocletian restricted social and professional mobility. Peasants became tied to the land in a way that presaged later systems of land tenure and workers such as bakers, armorers, public entertainers and workers in the mint had their occupations made hereditary."

When the economic and labor freedom of the population no longer favors the institution of the State, this is totally annulled and made hereditary, since a stable economy with its stable wave of workers is much more beneficial to the State than a prosperous economy.

Today, what we see are the initial symptoms of this future, which had already occurred in the past.

I know that your argument is that the idea of individualism as a form of government is seen best in the light of a future cycle of humanity. I think that it would be extremely difficult to see how getting rid of government would work in the current chaos. However, do you think that there are any interim measures which could work, 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?

The point being that to apply the word "state" to these ancient governments, when you clearly meant it in the modern sense, is wrong because they are not what we understand states in the modern sense to be. — Benkei

I affirm and reiterate:

- You focus on the argument that "concepts as abstractions have not yet been conceived" to support your argument directed against me and not my idea.

What you forget is that, in practice, these concepts have been projected by humanity for more than 5,000 years.

Honestly, your total bias in the detail of concepts being only metaphysics has already become almost religious rhetoric.

In your conclusion:

This:

- Roman roads -



Are not the same as this:

- Victorian era roads -



For the sake of your image as an "administrator" and "philosopher" and for the sake of discussion, leave this topic. Good day/ Good night.

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.

Nowadays, this same trap has been transformed into a much more complex and rigid form through the use of the sum of:

Nationality + Religion - or in the case of the Western World, "Ideologies "-. — Gus Lamarch

Yes. Completely. I totally forgot the Religion context. I thought it was needed in the Middle Age but no... we have a lot examples in the present of how Religion divide the individual and then makes conflict against the State: Nigeria (Boko Haram issues with Muslim religion or his constant conflict against the State) Israel vs Palestine (they are conflict for more than 50 years due to religion. Well we can see here another facts as land occupation but it is all related to religion).
I said it was a trap because there are a lot of people out there who literally will give their life for the nation they come from. I think is ridiculous since the day the world is more connected than ever through internet and also abstract things like “customs” are not working in economics. This is the example of European Union (different nations and culture but they have to unite together trying to make a powerful market).

Yet, because I assure you that the objective of the current job market is to use you as much as possible. — Gus Lamarch

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

I think that we are in a time of great contradictions. Personally, I am not denying the importance of the need for restrictions but I am inclined to think that the whole role the government has played in implementing this is questionable because it has made many people feel extremely oppressed. In England, just about everything apart going out to the supermarket has been for forbidden under government law. 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.

I know that you are not speaking about the current rules and regulations and they may vary from country to country. 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.

- You focus on the argument that "concepts as abstractions have not yet been conceived" to support your argument directed against me and not my idea.

What you forget is that, in practice, these concepts have been projected by humanity for more than 5,000 years.

Honestly, your total bias in the detail of concepts being only metaphysics has already become almost religious rhetoric. — Gus Lamarch

It's important for me to understand what you mean since you make grand statements which aren't at all clear. 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 - I still disagree this is the case, considering the many and varied roles government plays in our lives. There's oppression (penalties, stratification, standardasation) but also positive liberty (opportunities, welfare, etc.).

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. I'm probably more of a pluralist, in that individuals and groups vie for political power but similarly think the structure of modern government is conveniently beneficial to favour capitalist production - in other words, it's not just political but also economic power that shape the State and the government/State isn't an unbiased participant in the socio-economic fabric.

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...

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...

I know that you are not speaking about the current rules and regulations and they may vary from country to country. 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.

Absolutely. The knowledge and will to protect oneself is all that is required. 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?

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:

What I have become aware of recently is how public policy and government are so bound together. It seems that so many people want protection from the government and when regulations and policies are brought in they just accept with hardly any questions. This whole attitude makes me wonder what will come next, because it would be so easy for any government to introduce any extremely oppressive legislation.

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

@Gus Lamarch

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.

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.

the concept of "Government" had only been functionally expressed through its establishment through the "State", which creates order through the use of fear. — Gus Lamarch

The "state" is a nationalistic notion, and so comparatively recent.

The government is better defined as those who claim and are given a monopoly on the use of violence.

Doing that undermines your emphasis on individuality.

Weren't the first states sustained through "fear"? — Gus Lamarch

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? 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.

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." — Gus Lamarch

The EU was always about economic harmonisation and therefore integration. I don't think it's radically different than any other modern government in that it favours the wealthy over the poor (or capital over workers). When has a system of government not done that? Marx and other structuralist interpretations of the State often highlight this and I'm missing it from your assessments. I think you're reducing too far. There's certainly an element of repression in every society and I don't think societies can function completely without it because basic rules need to be respected (for instance, human rights).

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

Yes, this plays into stereotypes Dutch people (and Swedish, Austrian and Danish) have of southern european countries like Spain, Italy and Greece. You're lazy, and we're hard working. These politicians need to play for their local audience more than they do for the EU as they are elected by Dutch people. And so they take a strict stance to be seen as being critical of the EU, meanwhile working behind the scenes to reach a compromise. It's not pretty when you're on the receiving end.

Anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer wrote a good little book called The State that is worth a look, because it covers the thesis of the “conquest theory of state”, the idea that the state formed in no other way than the exploitation of the vanquished by the victors:

“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”.

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.

this plays into stereotypes Dutch people (and Swedish, Austrian and Danish) have of southern european countries like Spain, Italy and Greece. You're lazy, and we're hard working. — Benkei

I get your point but...

As I said previously Greece and Spain are the countries with more hours of working along EU. We are not guilty our corrupt system give to us low incomes and bankruptcy.
If you say it works for those countries have zero respect for Mediterranean countries because it work for the nationalists... it disappoints me a lot. Aren’t you supposed to have a better education system tan us? Aren’t you supposed to be more “open minded” or modern?
I do not how it works tourism in Greece (I guess similar as here) but is full of “perfect north European countries”. So I do not know if you are truly happy of being in “hard working” country when it looks like you need so much to come here in summer time (you even buy properties). Probably I am from a lowest country economy but I do not have that “anxiety” to abandon it.

Again I respect your point of view and I guess you are not of these kind of people but if you say that easy argument of “they are taking our money in south while we are working in north” is so convincing in your population it disappoints a lot coming from countries with better universities, welfare State, modernism, open minded.

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.

“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.

Again I respect your point of view and I guess you are not of these kind of people but if you say that easy argument of “they are taking our money in south while we are working in north” is so convincing in your population it disappoints a lot coming from countries with better universities, welfare State, modernism, open minded. — javi2541997

I don't think the majority thinks this way but enough do, that it's a political consideration. Especially if you're on the Conservative side of the spectrum and your main challenger is euro-sceptic. So it's the 20% of voters, the xenophobists, that were pleased by what they heard, there was another 20% that criticised them for it and the rest doesn't care enough.

As to better education... I had an Italian roommate once who could tell me things about early Dutch history I never learned. Dutch law is basically still roman law. Etc. Etc.

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. — Gus Lamarch

I'm still not clear on what makes a state a state because I reject the notion that it necessarily must be through fear. The reality is that specialisation allows a community to be more prosperous. It makes no sense for individuals to be successful like "him" because they have different strength. Just like in a family, where the parents lead they can do so through fear or through inspiration, but the latter does not mean children get to do whatever they want - but, OK, those are dependent relationships so the analogy only goes so far.

In a small community though, not everyone is found to be a subsistence farmer. You want better huts but your neighbour is better at building them, so you barter. In a large enough community, the neighbour will become a builder as a result of his aptitude. Where did people bring their disputes? A man or woman was considered wise and they brought them their problems. And here emerges sovereignty, someone's word becomes law. And someone breaks the law and the community as a whole enforces it and if the community is large enough, some burly types are part time enforcers. But this is all on the basis of cooperation and economic specialisation. For the community to function the basic rules need to be enforced but this is only a threat to those that would break the rules otherwise. Most people adhere to the rules, accept the various roles (not a typo) within the community as an expression of beeps aptitudes.

In a healthy community, these rules and roles then serve the community and it's just to enforce them. If they don't serve the community, they ought to be disobeyed. In one oppression is justified in the other it isn't.

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.

@Gus Lamarch

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.

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

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.