The State vs. “the Public”

We (whom do I address as “we”?) should not be surprised by recent awakening of confusion in global discourse about the State and the Public. It seems like that global economic crisis caused crisis in minds as well with disastrous consequences for public discourse. As if lack of financial resources (food) would drain necessary rationale (food supply) from brains that then prevents them to function.

From the discourse of those deprived minds follows, that the State is (should be) a guardian of Public interest. The minds deprived of food try to bring back already heavily (historically) discredited notion that the major threat of present crisis is that the State does not represent the Public enough; that the State is trading the Public for the interest of the Capital, of the Rich, of the any particular Interest that is of no Public interest.  This deprived mind is making a fatal mistake, that was theoretically discarded long ago, with implying that there is ONE PUBLIC (in the form of public interest) only existing, while we know that in any society there is vast number of publics delimited each from another by the border of interest. Consequently this mind implies, for instance, that the state is not executing its role of “the guardian of Public interest” when implying cuts in health system or in public administration or in education. Such statements are so pleasant to all deprived minds not having enough power to face the situation. They have dreadful fear of a situation in which the role of the State is (would be) consumed only by performing some measures to balance the power of different publics, of different interests (as it should be).  This implication of deprived mind is fatal because it implies that there is ONE PUBLIC that the State should be a representative of. This fatal mistake leads us in totalitarian regime, either stalinists, or fascists or Catholic, or “state capitalist” or mixed economy type.

The State is not there to guard interests of any public, but to safeguard the balance of power of many existing publics. But this basic value of liberal democracy, expressed by American founding fathers, is already forgotten.

This prevailing sick mindset is pushing us all in known pitfalls of negative selection, of state interventions, of … You should not search for examples in well known Stalinism only, but in all mixed economy systems spreading around, America being one of leaders of this movement.

Why is this perverse notion so attractive? Answer is quite simple: it fits well to all those that are incapable to express their intellectual, manual, subjective, emotional, labour, inventional, hand, whatever… power. This notion is a sedative for all that are well only when they have a feeling that they are under protection that is apparently guarding them from being exposed to any competition on any level. This is so comfortable notion to all that have no will, no power, no desire to compete. To all those that like to blame others (that have power…) for their mistakes, while at the same time they cleverly avoid doing anything they could be blamed for. Such minds are perverse, sick and unproductive. They  have the position to shout publicly. But shouting is their only expression. They represent a fatal burden on human evolution.

It should be stated that these minds do not understand that they are the ultimate expression of intelligent design ideology as well. Many of them would be (are going to be) appalled by this allegation, since they see themselves as atheistic, democratic libertarian. But their self-perception has nothing to do with their reality. They long for a strong hand that is not invisible hand.

Andrej Drapal


  1. You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and extremely broad for me. I’m looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!

  2. WHAT IF

    we filter all the existing “many, many, many publics delimited each from another by the border of interest” through “all that have no will, no power, no desire to compete” filter and we get the result of 1% of those that meet the “will, power and desire to compete” criteria of yours and the rest 99% that “represent a fatal burden on human evolution”?


    the “totalitarian regime, either stalinists, or fascists or Catholic, or “statecapitalistic” or mixed economy type” what we get anyway?


    we should maybe change our criteria to less übermensch ones?

    TRUE or FALSE?

  3. Strong argument, it seems. But the problem is, that “uebermensch” gets a nutrition for existence exactly from those 99% of weak. Only a society that has a 100% uebermesch representation can escape one uebermensch. The 99% movement is a generator of totalitarism.

Comments are closed.