mbs: you are mistaken. Like old man river, the state is going to keep rolling along regardless of whether I "recognize its legitimacy" or not. What a thought-- that whether or not I, me, max sawicky "recognizes" the state has more meaning than a buffalo turd on the great plains.
No, what I do see, since I don't believe in predestination, is the possibility that what I and others do could have some effect on what the State does, short of the destruction of the State at my puny hands. In other words, I think being political is worthwhile, and not merely a form of recreation or professional sustenance (though it is that too). I often become depressed and question the value of being political, but so far not enough to retire from my delusions.
jg: Thus, even though you may deeply disagree with the policies of Bush's Pentagon/State Department/CIA etc., you are moved to debate about how the U.S. state can best protect your life and limb, whether it be through putting armed federal marshals on commercial aircraft, or sending the Delta Force into the Hindu Kush.
mbs: damn right. If somebody is trying to break into my house, I expect the cops to come and scoop him up. They may not for reasons of incompetence or other things, but I expect it because it is my right.
Clearly the more inflated, incoherent, open-ended the nature of the U.S. military objective, the less relevant it will be to my well-being from a positive standpoint. But I feel obliged to try and influence that too.
jg: I, on the other hand, merely grudgingly acknowledge that by historical accident I was born into a (more or less oligarchic) bourgeois democracy, and hence as a U.S. citizen I have some puny leverage over what the U.S. state does, but that does not mean that I identify the U.S. state as an apparatus that prosecutes my political will. I can (in however meagre fashion) influence U.S. foreign policy or protest U.S. foreign policy, but to _endorse_ a proactive course of action for the U.S. state -- such as having special operations take down Bin Laden and crew -- presupposes that I have extended the U.S. state license to act in my name, which I haven't. Now,
mbs: There is actually no principled difference between our positions. You are no more pessimistic about the State's capacity and inclination to do what you think is right than I am. You are simply less optimistic that you might be able to do something about it. You are depressed. Rent some some videos like 'My Fair Lady' or 'Music Man.'
jg: if there was an international team of red-green militias which formed to "root out" and "punish" Bin Laden et al (prematurely assuming that he's the man) for their crimes, that would be a different matter ...
I don't think I'm being terribly clear about this, and perhaps I'm being either too ontological or formalistic here, but I think you catch my drift. JG
mbs: you are implicitly calling for a UN action rather than a unilateral U.S. action, though you can appreciate the practical difficulties of this. Namely, that the UN is not constructed to engage in that sort of action.
You basically cancel out all of your own options. But your job is to devise an option, not stew in all the reasons why you can't do anything. That's Carrol's job.