In this paper, I will A) express my thoughts about
the required utilitarianism of the state and B) explore the consequences of the state
being an endogenous product of society.
A) A
critical difference between the ‘private’ civil society and the ‘public’
state is the breadth of their responsibility. While all private groups within
society serve a certain sub-segment of the population, the state finds itself
accountable to, and responsible for, the collective benefit of all individuals,
organizations and sentiments of the realm. What is interesting to me, is that
often (if not almost always), different political agents will exert opposing pressures
on the state. As the decision maker, the state will have to decide in favor of
one force at the expense of a potential other. Hence, in order for a state to
function responsibly, it must preserve a strictly selfless, utilitarian
outlook. Instead of appeasing important pressure groups or powerful individuals
or serving a particular social group which carries greater value to the ‘managers’
of the state, it must exert immense focus into ensuring the collective benefit
of the universal set (all elements contained within society) while discarding
all sentiments for any of the individual elements.
B) The
state exists to manage behavior within society that is unfairly or
inappropriately harmful for other social elements. Let us consider the
following propositions. The state, as an organizational body, is severely
dependent on the individuals who run it. Inevitably, since the individuals
running the state emerge from within society, the state and society, in terms
of their practical functioning can be potential reflections of each other.
While structures (the norms and established bureaucratic protocols) are
undeniably important instruments in the functioning of both, systems (the
manner in which state and societal functioning play out in actuality once
adjusted for the human impact on the result) are ground level practicalities
that are of even greater consequence. If the three premises presented above are
accepted, even if only partially, it follows that a social system that is
predominantly exploitative is bound to translate into an exploitative state
system. The question then arises: where does such a scenario leave the role,
usefulness and functional scope of the state as a useful organ protecting
freedom and providing security?
1 comment:
Thoughtful post and I think that you identify one of the central problems with states, namely that they tend to be exploitative in nature, which is contrary to the freedom of individuals in society.
Post a Comment