What is the ideal relation between the individual and the state? Should the individual serve the state or the state serve the individual? What is the best form of government and what is the worst? When is a man justified in disobeying the dictates of the state? To what extent should the majority rule and thereby act against the freedom of the minorities? When is a man justified in rebelling against the established order and creating a new state? What are the relative merits of the different economic systems (capitalism, communism, etc.). Does God have anything to do with this?

What is the ideal relation between the individual and the state? Should the individual serve the state or the state serve the individual?

The state should definitely serve the citizens.

The citizens should support the state, not serve it.

What is the best form of government and what is the worst?

That's impossible to say.

I think all govermental ideologies are doable. It all depends on who's running them.

I dictatorship could actually be a wonderful goverment if you have a wonderful dictator who is truly doing what is in the best interest of the citizens and goes about it in a fair and just manner. That seldom happens in a dictatorship though.

Socialism can also work well, but again that depends on how it is organized and who's making the decisions. What we typically see is that small communes work better than very large ones. When the society gets so large that things on no longer personal (you don't really know your neighbors) then greed runs like wildfire.

Democracy could be a great system if it could be made to work. The USA is supposed to be a democracy, but that's a joke. The vast majority of American citizens did not want to invade Iraq, yet the lunic president sent our armies in there anyway. Is that true democracy? I don't think so.

As long as greed and lust for personal power exists any system of government is open to abuse.

It's no so much the choice of system. It has far more to do with the actual individuals who are running it.


When is a man justified in disobeying the dictates of the state?

Whenever the state requires that he overrides his own moral values.

Every human must do what is right by their own conscious. Otherwise they can't live with their own actions. If they aren't healthy within their own individual person, then the state is not healthy either because the state is really nothing more than a large number of individual persons.

To what extent should the majority rule and thereby act against the freedom of the minorities?

We can be thankful that our democracy in the USA isn't a true democracy. that's all I can say about that.

When is a man justified in rebelling against the established order and creating a new state?

Whenever he feels justified in doing so.

What are the relative merits of the different economic systems (capitalism, communism, etc.).

Capitalism doesn't work in the long haul as history continues to show us.

Communism could be made to work, but it would require extremely wise overseerers, and history has shown that extremely wise overseerers are almost impossible to come by.

Does God have anything to do with this?

Yes. She laughs.

Ideally, I believe the perfect relationship is that of mutual support. The individual supporting the community, so that the community can support the whole.


The state should serve as a means of mediation between those individuals within it, and the individuals serve to form the way in which the state can best do so.



I think Communism is the worst form, as it takes away a persons God given right to determine and work toward their own destiny. I think a democracy is the best form of government, as an individuals right to determine their own path is preserved, so long as they do so in a reasonable fashion...as dictated by the laws that WE dictate together.


I don't see that one single man or even a small group is "justified" in any disobedient action against his state. It is his/their duty to choose those who best represent them. If they have failed to elect such officials in their community and they feel they have enough support behind their cause to justify change, then it's their duty to evoke that change through proper channels, or influence the majority to elect such people into offices that can influence such change come the next election.


I believe it is the majorities job to protect the minority and see to their interests as best they can.


When the majority stands behind him in his views...but by then he will have no need to create a new state, as he has won over the existing one.


Communism: everyone but the military starves and no one is free.
Socialism: ditto
Capitalism: no one starves and everyone has the freedom to imagine they are free.
Fascism: few starve and everyone is free to work.
Democratic Republic: no one starves and we are free to elect who regulates our freedoms.
If you wanted Democracy and Republic broken down separately, I'm not sure how to do that, since the only difference I can clearly see between the two is 4-8 years.


Sure...free will to ruin...I mean RUN our lives as we see fit.

No, seriously though. Sure God has everything to do with it...he started the whole thing by outlining the need for laws, means of enforcement, as well as judges. Check the bible...it's all in there.

smiless, some of you questions are thought provocing, but next time maybe you can put the subject in the title, so that when I go back to review are particular on I don't have to try to remember what number it was?

For instance: ideal relation between individual and state

Sorta like that. I have spent more time than I should here, so that would speed things up so I don't waste too much time, but I can then go back directly to those I want to view more responses to.

My friend has made a table of contents just for you. I hope this helps http://mingle2.com/topic/show/188697