State vs. Individual

Taylor V. Smith

Taylor V. Smith

⚛ Graduate
The Greeks argued that the interests of the polis should precede the interests of the individual. In Politics, Aristotle writes that "the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that."

This idea stands in stark contrast to liberalism, which argues that the exclusive end of the state is to protect the rights of the individual. The U.S. Declaration of Independence argues that states are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What do you think? Should the state come first or should the individual come first?
 
I think the individual must always come first, because without the individual, there can be no state. If the state becomes so powerful that individuals no longer matter, I dread to think what the result would be. That said, the function of the state should be to protect the interests of the majority, in ways that are not detrimental to the minority interests. It's a difficult balance to acheive, but it has to be done.
 
Perhaps they do not realize it is the individual that makes the state. There is no state if there are no individuals. They may also not realize that no matter what is put in place by the state it takes individuals to comply. If the majority of individuals do not comply the state rules and regulations fall by the wayside and are of no value to the individual or the state.
 
Looking back at my original post, perhaps this creates a false dichotomy. The truth is that both are important and both contribute in a symbiotic relationship.
 
Back
Top