Human history shows that freedom and power exist in constant tension. Perhaps freedom is not a permanent condition but an ongoing struggle between human dignity and the natural tendency of power to expand.
From the generations of our own time, those of us who never truly believed that “the wolf changes its fur but not its mind” — that the global system of governance built upon the state (any state, whatever it may be) would become more humane with time — today we almost rub our hands with bitter vindication. Putin and Trump are our “savior’s”.
It is a pity that we wasted so much paper — in an age when forests themselves are disappearing — trying to convince those who swear in the name of the state and authority that a rotten tree cannot produce good fruit. As Christ once put it: “Every good tree bears good fruit, but a rotten tree bears evil fruit.” A polluted spring cannot give clear water.
After the devastation of Nazi barbarity, many believed that the future would never again bring monsters of power like Hitler and his praetorians, nor peoples turned into pawns in their hands.
History proved them wrong.
Not even a century later, the rise of two leaders — Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump — elected with popular votes, shakes the world once more and awakens fears that humanity might again witness great turmoil and conflict. No one can know the real cost of such upheaval or when such a new historical crisis might end.
After such experiences, perhaps the time has come to re-examine the meaning of the state itself and the famous “social contract” of the Enlightenment.
Can individual freedom exist without the state?
To approach this question, we can look briefly at the answers offered by philosophers from ancient Greece to modern times. Their ideas reveal how differently freedom and authority have been understood.
Socrates saw freedom mainly as moral self-knowledge rather than political independence. Plato believed that politics should belong to philosophers and that excessive freedom leads to chaos and tyranny. Aristotle described human beings as “political animals,” meaning that life outside the political community is incomplete.
More radical were the Cynics, who considered social institutions artificial and believed true freedom lay in individual self-sufficiency.
Later thinkers offered other answers. Thomas Hobbes believed that without the state there would be chaos — a war of all against all. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that laws are legitimate only when they express the general will. Karl Marx considered the state an instrument of class domination that might eventually disappear. Mikhail Bakunin believed freedom could exist only with the abolition of the state itself.
Michel Foucault later suggested something even more complex: power does not exist only in the state but throughout society — in institutions, knowledge, and social relations.
Thus the question remains open:
can individual freedom exist without authority, or must freedom coexist with some form of power?
The time has come for the modern and above all promising Artificial Intelligence “through the mouth” of Diotima to take a stand. Yes or no to the abolition of the state? Revision of its principles and where? Can individual freedom, “Putin” and “Trump” go together?
Diotima:
Can individual freedom exist without the state?
History shows two dangers.
When the state becomes too powerful, freedom is threatened by authoritarianism.
When the state collapses entirely, violence and informal domination often replace it.
In the 21st century, technology and artificial intelligence introduce a new dimension. Digital tools may strengthen democracy by enabling participation, transparency, and collective decision-making. At the same time, they may also create unprecedented systems of surveillance and control.
Therefore the future of freedom may not lie in abolishing the state but in transforming it: reducing concentrations of power, strengthening institutions of accountability, and enabling citizens to participate more directly in political life.
Freedom ultimately depends not only on institutions but on societies capable of limiting power.