I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to
choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend I hope I should
have the guts to betray my country...Love and loyalty to an individual can run
counter to the claims of the State. When they do - down with the State, say
I, which means that the State would down me."
(E.M. Forster, What I Believe. In: Two Cheers for Democracy p.68f)
In the centre of many of today's most fervently discussed and disputed issues stands the question of who is entitled to a superior position: the individual or the state. Take abortion, for instance. Should a future mother have the right to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes to do so? Are her motives her business or is some public authority, which is able to impartially scrutinise the mother's economic and social background, necessary? Or perhaps the decision should be left to the church, which claims that only God is allowed to take life?
The opposite forces of the individual and the state clash in many more issues. Is it, for example, my own decision if and when I want to end my life? Or is suicide a mortal sin? Proponents of the authority of the state will repeat the old slogan that with an action as important as suicide or abortion the good of the society has to be kept in mind? Often, however, this argument is only an excuse to meddle with the affairs of the individual. In the Star Trek episode "Death Wish" a Q is incarcerated simply because he wants to end his life:
Q: We had no choice but to confine
him for his own safety.
Philosopher Q: Not for my safety, for
theirs. I was the greatest threat the Continuum has ever
known. They feared me so much they had to lock me up for
eternity. And when they did that they were saying that the individual's
rights will be protected only so long as they don't conflict with the
state's. Nothing is so dangerous to a society.
This quote aptly illustrates the Western viewpoint. E.M. Forster voices similar feelings in his essay "What I believe". He says he cannot trust the state because
...the man who is selling newspapers
outside the Houses of Parliament can safely leave his papers
to go for a drink...: anyone who takes a paper is sure to
drop a copper into the cap. But the men who are inside the Houses of
Parliament - they cannot trust one another like that, still less
can the Government they compose trust other governments."
(E.M. Forster, What
I Believe. In: Two Cheers for Democracy p.74)
We have to be aware, however, that other cultures may
see the relation between the individual and the state quite differently.
Asian cultures in particular emphasis the value of the state and
sometimes look down on the Western standpoint as being selfish
and decadent.
Furthermore, dictators have often tried to suppress the individual.
Hitler, with the help of his huge propaganda apparatus was one
of the most successful. Through the geometric appeal of the marching
masses, the lightning, the flags, the architecture and the whole
atmosphere his party and state rallies wanted to convey the notion
that the individual is unimportant. Only the crowd, the so called
"Volksgemeinschaft" counted; unified in their adoration
for Hitler every doubt in the single individual was to be wiped
out through collective ecstasy. Such an endeavour is, as Forster
points out, in the end bound to fail: because we are born separately
and die separately everyone remains an individual.
In his rallies Hitler used many elements of Christian liturgy. Indeed it is true to say that the Christian church has built a strict hierarchy of rules and regulations which have to be followed. Hence, the Church itself can be regarded as a state. In his science fiction book "A Canticle for Leibowitz" Walter M. Miller tells his story of a nuclear holocaust and the slow rebirth of the human race from the perspective of members of the Church. Although one may not agree with many of the sentiments voiced, especially regarding abortion, the books manages to bring across the viewpoint of the Church: rules and regulations are necessary for without them the human race is on the road to self-extinction.
And the Church is not completely wrong. If
everyone can do what he or she wants, society would disintegrate.
The individual cannot be completely free. Some constraints have
to be imposed on it by the state. The paramount question is: how
far should the state be allowed to go?
I may be in favour of the right to commit suicide or to undergo
an abortion but what about the right to bear arms? Why should
the state force adults to hand in their rifles and handguns which
they bought to hunt animals or to protect themselves? Is the intervention
of the state justified in this case? And if yes, why is it justified
here and not with abortion or suicide? One could say that weapons
should b e banned because I could harm other people with them
and not only myself as with suicide. But what about abortion?
Here, harm is done to the foetus.
The only answer to these questions is that there is no general
answer. Personally I am for a ban of handguns. But if asked why,
I can only say that I think it is for the good of society - a
statement which I critisized as being a lousy excuse earlier.
Hence, each and everyone of us has to decide for him or herself how much intervention by the state is justified. The possibilities range from communism and George Orwell's "Big Brother" state (maximal intervention) to Manchester capitalism (minimal intervention). As people of different nations ponder this question the outcome may be very different. Let us take the issue of weapons' control as an example again: in Great Britain, on the one hand, a complete ban on all guns was introduced after an unfortunate killing of school children. The USA, on the other hand, have refuses to set up such a ban, not only because of the powerful NRA but also because they feel, especially in the South, that they have to uphold their civil right to bear arms - as granted by the second amendment of the constitution.
Thus, my conclusion has to be ambiguous. Every individual should have his or her own opinion on how far the influence of the state should extend. Anyway, one thing is certain: the battle between the power of the state and the power of the individual is bound to continue well into the next millennium. It is highly uncertain if a completely satisfactory solution can ever be found.