> Except that time happens and that single state policy is modified on a continual basis. Great, so we can have ever-escalating conflict among factions for eph

> Except that time happens and that single state policy is modified on a continual basis. Great, so we can have ever-escalating conflict among factions for ephemeral control over the source of uniform top-down policy. And, on top of that, we get an ever-shifting policy equilibrium without any stability or predictability. How can this be regarded as a workable system? The fact remains that at any given moment, there's a single set of policies that apply universally within society. The likely ephemeral nature of the current policy equilibrium has no bearing on the fact that the nature of the system eliminates all possibility of "agreeing to disagree". In a system where all social questions are political ones, and all political questions are addressed as universals, there's no alternative to all-encompassing political conflict. Every divergence in values or priorities serves as the basis for an all-or-nothing struggle, that invariably spills over into the rest of society, and corrupts our social relations to the point that every other institution and community in society becomes polluted by political acrimony, even in contexts where the political state has no legitimate role. The so-called "culture war" in modern American society is a clear example of this. > How is this not the case in a democracy? It is the case in a substantive democracy, where clear boundaries are indeed drawn between distinct social context and institutions, and in which the state is properly regarded as a single institution within society, and not a unified expression of the whole. Where those boundaries are blurred, and the political state is equated with society as a whole, substantive pluralism is diminished, and authority becomes concentrated in the institution of the state. > Pluralism comes from the liberal doctrine of individualism; it's a natural consequence of asserting the individual worthiness and dignity, which demands that the individual's concerns be considered in some fashion. No, real pluralism doesn't come from some vague notion that "individual's concerns be considered in some fashion", by some unstated but presumptively singular authority. It comes from the recognition of the fact that society is the patterns of interaction that exist among individuals who assert their own agency, in pursuit of their own purposes, in undertaking relations with others, and that in doing so, they create a great plurality of autonomous communities and institutions, and maintain the inherent right to define the nature of those communities and institutions without making reference to putative universals promulgated by external third parties. > Making a false distinction between state and society is useful only for disempowering citizens who see themselves as part of one but not the other Asserting a false equivalency between society at large and the state in particular is useful only for disempowering citizens, who learn to outsource responsibility for their particular circumstances to external institutions and vague abstractions, instead of applying their own initiative, in concert with others, within the context of the substantive institutions and communities that they inhabit. > Why do we rely so heavily on the fourth estate to speak on our behalf? You might, but we don't. > Why are we ourselves not speaking? What is this obsession with talking, anyway. Speech isn't action, and exit is more important than voice.