I completely agree with Wojtek. A strong state is one in which the state is capable of carrying out its functions (i.e. the state in most Western and developed countries). A weak state is one that does not, but is easily swayed by this or that extrastate entity, or is entirely subservient to this or that extrastate entity, or is a cover for extrastate activity (i.e., Russia in the 1990s, Ukraine today, the "developing world" in general). The former is characterized by relative lack of corruption and lawlessness. The latter is not. Democratic rights actually correspond with strong states, not the opposite, because a weak state is incapable of enforcing those rights.
The ruling class actually doesn't need a state. They own all the guns. The state just limits their power.
--- On Thu, 9/24/09, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> This turns things on their head. Strong states are, by
> definition, those
> where democratic rights don't exist and social movements
> and dissenting
> individuals are surpressed and forced underground, where
> they are required
> to struggle for the establishment or restoration of those
> rights.