You said, "...it’s not just an inanimate object..." My apologies if I misinterpreted your verbiage.
The State is an inherently parasitic idea. The Constitutional experiment here in America is often cited as the best effort ever made to tame it and turn it into a beneficial thing. It revealed its true nature even hen most notably in Washington's first term with the causes for, and response to, the Whiskey Rebellion. And then there were the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams. It has always been an inherently corrupt and inherently corrupting force in opposition to society and the voluntary economy.
Sure, you can argue against my statements. Heck, people argue that the Earth is flat. But if you try to remove the human element from government by humans, you're trying to argue in a fantasy land.
Government and leadership are opposed concepts. People choose to follow leaders voluntarily. Government compels obedience by threat and duress. Yes, we need leadership and organization, and that is why I oppose the idea of Statism. It is antithetical to the miraculous complexity of society.
Are you at all familiar with the economic calculation problem? Let's set aside what I said about the nature of power as a corrupting influence, and assume everyone in government is there for purely noble reasons, and act selflessly. They have an information problem that cannot be overcome. They cannot calculate what production is needed for society. They cannot calculate the allocation of scarce resources. they cannot weigh which courses of action are most beneficial.
Sure, they have loads of statistics available, and let's even assume they are all accurate and wisely interpreted. They still don't know what everyone else values, or how those value scales shift even from moment to moment in the course of a day. Their organized, central planning with altruistic motivations and virtuous intent is still necessarily misguided, and must be done by the use of coercive force against those who disagree.
No worries. I could’ve used more precise language. You made a lot of points, most of which I agree with, and I want to offer a proper response but there’s a lot there to unpack so I’d like to address it in bits if you find that acceptable.
I had two paragraphs on the concept of inherent corruption but it was taking more time and forking into more explaining than I’m prepared to sit down and commit to at the moment so I’ll get back to you when I get my thoughts in order.
No worries. It took me years to sort through my own prejudices and preconceptions before I accepted my current views on the State, it nature, and its purpose.
Check @badquakerdotcom's archive links post. There's a multi-part repost of Davi Barker's examination of authoritarian sociopathy delving into the psychological effects of power there.
If you recall, I began this discussion playing devil's advocate but I believe I've come to the conclusion my own prejudices and opinions are getting in my way.
The entire reason I wanted to argue on behalf of the state is to look for ways to disempower the negative impact it has in society while further empowering positive impacts, if we can agree there are any, which I’m not certain I can off the top of my head that would be any different than pointing out the benefits to fascism. If anything good can be found in it it’s seriously outweighed by its failures, thus moot.
Maybe I’ll be able to focus and weigh in on the next post. 😁