[TOUGH QUESTIONS] State or individual - which should be master? - Zerowedgie

[Zenaan Harkness]

So this is perhaps a tough question for folks round here :D

Well, at least for the statists.

This question - which should be master, individual or state, is posed
as a dichotomy, as though it's one or the other.

Any anarchist worth his salt is firmly on the side of the individual,
and so in these quarters a statist stands out like Brennan
photographing Hillary giving Obama a golden shower. (Ugh, damn!
Strike that thought already‼)

Thankfully Zerowedgie firmly observes the third aspect of the trinity
in this realm - the middle ground:


   STATE        MIDDLE         INDIVIDUAL

 ∙ Plato        Alexander      Aristotle
   Republic    “The Great”

 ∙ Maoists      Confucian      Taoists


In the face of this thought, that which arose for me personally a few
years ago as "an alternative noun/label for anarchy" namely "direct
democracy" appears now to be the middle ground - that balance
between:

 ∙ the very real potential chaos of anarchy, and
 
 ∙ the very real potential crystalline death of most of that which
   makes life worth living, in the extreme conformity and death of
   the individual, when the state is taken to its limit.

Notwithstanding the (correct as it is) appearance of direct democracy
as a form of individualism, direct democracy also be a recognition of
both the tribal nature of individuals and the consequent inherent
need for us to communicate in respect of our apparent disagreements
and possibly find resolutions, thus:

 ∙ the state    direct democracy    anarchy/ism


Perhaps it might be useful to consider the 'problems' at the extreme:

 - Can we say that the particular absolute authority and power which
   is inherent and existent within the individual, ought or must
   NOT EVER
   be (involuntarily or voluntarily for that matter) surrendered to
   the authority and power of the family, tribe or "state" etc?

 - Can we say that the particular absolute authority and power which
   is inherent and existent within the individual, ought or must
   ALWAYS
   be (involuntarily or voluntarily for that matter) surrendered to
   the authority and power of the family, tribe or "state" etc?


Dichotomies eh?

Perhaps the middle ground, the third principle forming the reality of
this particular trinity, could be useful after all?




State Or Individual?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-22/state-or-individual