Commentary: Hegel: §321-329

Hegel: §321-329

     Hegel's account of the State and it's individuality as well as a citizen's duty to it is well represented here.  To start from the beginning, the first premises comparing the autonomy of the state to that of the individual's is well represented in this outline.  I find the analogy of the state to the individual to be concrete enough and valid.  Their is undoubtedly a collective political consciousness of a state, a certain identifying patriotism.  This consciousness is clearly able to recognize other state consciousness and internalize the implications of these in order to see itself as an individual among others (321/298).  This premise is perfectly reasonable, it is with the next that either the transcription or Hegel's logic starts to break down a little.
     The problem that begins here is the jump between the second set of premises and the conclusion about sacrificing one's life for the state.  Better stated, the argument put forth here relies on a few (possibly simply unstated) assumptions.  The first and most pertinent of all being that now that the State has assumed the character of an individual it now must be regarded as such.  Despite the fact that it is a larger group of consciousness it is capable of the same things as an individual and must be treated as such.  The first implication of this is fallibility.  According to the author "The state protects citizens’ individual rights and welfare (including the protection from crime), and the citizens in return must protect the state from foreign states" (537/285).  I cannot assume that in this reciprocity the state will always hold up its end of the deal.  There are in fact many cases in which the state does not protect the rights of citizens but systematically endangers them, as can be the case with immigrants, minorities, and those deemed criminal.  As the state is now on the same level of consciousness as a person, it must be regarded as such in every capacity.
     The next point in Hegel's argument as well is somewhat flawed, or at least in contradiction to the first premise of state autonomy.  He says that the state uses its influence to nullify individual rights but by doing so, injects them into the collective consciousness of the community.  This seems a bit illogical.  If the state achieves a consciousness equal to that of the individual, and I'm going to continue equating status of consciousness to general status, it has or should only be granted the same level of authority as the individual.  An individual cannot nullify another's rights for their own purposes because they deem them more important.  If the state engages in these actions it is merely committing crimes and inflicting the damage onto the people that it was established to defend them from.
    In summation the argument breaks down when Hegel BOTH:
1) Establishes the consciousness of the state as equal to that of the individual and
2) Grants it special privileges that the individual cannot wield
For this conclusion to be made true and at least salvage the 2nd and 3rd premises the state must be elevated to a level higher than that of the individual, therefore making it larger than an individual life and worthy of self sacrifice.