Are you sure you want to delete this answer? Yes Sorry, something has gone wrong.
Seeking, then, the elements common to all the institutions to which the name State has been applied, they have found them two in number: That this second element is common to all States, I think, will not be denied,—at least, I am not aware that any State has ever tolerated a rival State within its borders; and it seems plain that any State which should do so would thereby cease to be a State and to be considered as such by any.
The exercise of authority over the same area by two States is The relationship between the individual and the state contradiction.
That the first element, aggression, has been and is common to all States will probably be less generally admitted. Nevertheless, I shall not attempt to re-enforce here the conclusion of Spencerwhich is gaining wider acceptance daily,—that the State had its origin in aggression, and has continued as an aggressive institution from its birth.
Its growth in importance is but an evidence of the tendency of progress toward the abolition of the State. Taking this view of the matter, the Anarchists contend that defence is not an essential of the State, but that aggression is.
Now what is aggression? Aggression is simply another name for government. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy.
This distinction between invasion and resistance, between government and defence, is vital. Without it there can be no valid philosophy of politics. Upon this distinction and the other considerations just outlined, the Anarchists frame the desired definitions.
This, then, is the Anarchistic definition of government: And this is definition of the State: As to the meaning of the remaining term in the subject under discussion, the word individual, I think there is little difficulty. Putting aside the subtleties in which certain metaphysicians have indulged, one may use this word without danger of being misunderstood.
Whether the definitions thus arrived at prove generally acceptable or not is a matter of minor consequence. I submit that they are reached scientifically, and serve the purpose of clear conveyance of thought.
The Anarchists, having by their adoption taken due care to be explicit, are entitled to have their ideas judged in the light of these definitions. What relations should exist between the State and the individual?
The general method of determining these is to apply some theory of ethics involving a basis of moral obligation. In this method the Anarchists have no confidence. The idea of moral obligation, of inherent rights and duties, they totally discard. They look upon all obligations, not as moral, but as social, and even then not really as obligations except as these have been consciously and voluntarily assumed.
If a man makes an agreement with men, the latter may combine to hold him to his agreement; but, in the absence of such agreements, no man, so far as the Anarchists are aware, has made any agreement with God or with any other power of any order whatsoever.
The Anarchists are not only utilitarians, but egoists in the farthest and fullest sense. So far as inherent right is concerned, might is its only measure.
Any man, be his name Bill Sykes or Alexander Romanoffand any set of men, whether the Chinese highbinders or the Congress of the United States, have the right, if they have the power, to kill or coerce other men and to make the entire world subservient to their ends.
This position being subversive of all systems of religion and morality, of course I cannot expect to win immediate assent thereto from the audience which I am addressing to-day; nor does the time at my disposal allow me to sustain it by an elaborate, or even a summary, examination of the foundation of ethics.
Those who desire a greater familiarity with this particular phase of the subject should read a profound German work, Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum, written years ago by a comparatively unknown author, Dr. Caspar Schmidt, whose nom de plume was Max Stirner. Read only by a few scholars, this book is buried in obscurity, but is destined to a resurrection that perhaps will mark an epoch.
But, fortunately, it is not a question of right: The history of humanity has been largely one long and gradual discovery of the fact that the individual is the gainer by society exactly in proportion as society is free, and of the law that the condition of a permanent and harmonious society is the greatest amount of individual liberty compatible with equality of liberty.
The average man of each new generation has said to himself more clearly and consciously than his predecessor: My neighbor is not my enemy, but my friend, and I am his, if we would but mutually recognize the fact.
We help each other to a better, fuller, happier living; and this service might be greatly increased if we would cease to restrict, hamper, and oppress each other.In Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan theory what is the relationship between the state and the individual?
Update Cancel. this fact must, at least, be admitted. The social contract (the agreement between the state and the individual) was a way to nullify man’s natural tendencies towards violence and provide a foundation for peace.
Sep 17, · The state essentially serves to protect the rights of the individual, but in extreme circumstances this principle may need to be compromised. In situation of definite danger the state has a right to conscript an army imo. A half-hour is a very short time in which to discuss the relation of the State to the individual, and I must ask your pardon for the brevity of my dealing with a succession of considerations each of which needs an entire essay for its development.
This article provides information about the relationship between individual and society! Traditionally, two theories – the social contract and the organic theory – have explained the relationship between the individual and society.
According to social contract theory, society is the result of an. 4 - The Relationship Between People & Government. Previous Page Next Page.
One of the prevailing themes of American history is the changing relationship between people and their governments at the local, state, and national levels. It is a story of individuals having a more personal and frequent contact with government and its actions.
Jul 31, · Best Answer: The only just relationship between the individual and the state is one in which the state simply protects the individual from force and fraud, and the individual provides a small amount of funds to allow those functions.
Furthermore, every individual should pay Status: Resolved.