state

Faith is a state of openness or trust.

If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern!

Most jokes state a bitter truth.

Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

We are in a wrong state of mind if we are not in a thankful state of mind.

The power which establishes a state is violence the power which maintains it is violence the power which eventually overthrows it is violence.

You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed__hat has nothing to do with the business of the state.

He who is completely sanctified, or cleansed from all sin, and dies in this state, is fit for glory.

Musicals are famous for being in a constant state of flux.

War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means.

The State thrives on war - unless, of course, it is defeated and crushed - expands on it, glories in it.

All oppression creates a state of war.

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.

States are as the men are they grow out of human characters.

A state is a perfect body of free men united together to enjoy common rights and advantages.

Being nice is state of "Probability", not a state of "possibility".

The anarchist, as the born foe of authority, will be destroyed by it after damaging it more or less. The anarch, on the other hand, has appropriated authority; he is sovereign. He therefore behaves as a neutral power vis-_-vis state and society. He may like, dislike, or be indifferent to whatever occurs in them. That is what determines his conduct; he invests no emotional values.

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master__ whims. He is often cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.3. The master has a group of slave, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.4. The master allows the slave four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what use to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into discussion of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselve3s to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master may also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of the slave?