Dear Julian,

The terms that you use indicate a narrow perspective, based on contemporary Western/Australian politics.

Once you and your friends all freely agree to have a state, then I leave it to you (plural) to define its role and decide how to run it, because it should then be none of my business and I don't wish to be drawn into your internal affairs, certainly not your petty politics.

If within your group you want to have a democracy, then fine, have a democracy. If you want to have a culture, or two cultures, or three, or none - that's entirely up to you. If you want to follow a particular philosophy and strive towards particular goals, then fine, go for it, but do keep me out.

That "enlightenment" which you keep mentioning has nothing to do with enlightenment (i.e. realisation of one's true nature as God), but is only a name given to a certain, very specific political movement within relatively-recent Western history, born of internal disputes within the Western culture, which is not my cup of tea anyway.

If what you try to do in this topic is to study civilised society and the role of the state, then why didn't you say so to begin with? I am not a student of those particular subjects!

Now you mention that you have a problem with some super-powers that threaten you, but that's a new topic that was not mentioned before, neither in this article nor in our conversation so far. One thing is clear: I do not represent a power or a super-power and I do not pose a threat to you, thus you have no right to impose your state and your values on me. How I and my friends cope with those super-powers is then up to us - perhaps our irrelevance can even become part of our solution...