“I believe the State exists for the development of individual lives, not individuals for the development of the state.”

I think I know what his sentiment is but don;t think it is expressed very well. This sounds like the state comes first and then it creates individuals. I assert that individuals come first and then create the state/society to assist themselves and others to have a better existence together. If there were but one individual on the planet he would not need a State.

The keys words here are 'for the development of individual lives' - it doesn't mean welfare or a dictatorial state. Presently, individuals exist for the development of the state – meaning King George and his cohorts. Sir Julian Huxley was an internationally acclaimed author and humanist and I think he knew exactly what he was saying.

Huxley is refering to the function of the state and the individual. It seems we, at least in California and the Federal level, have lost sight of this. Our state and federal government is invasive and it has become accetable for the buracrats to come to work each morning with an self important, self serving attitude. We have returned to petty fifdomes - where government expands beyond the borders of it's function to serve it's own existance. All the while reducing the level of service for the core elements for which it was created. Schools, roads, bridges etc. Our government has gotten and is getting further out of phase with the intent of the founders of this country. But this is due to the complacency of the citizenry - We have the government we deserve.

I, with Bruce, am not sure exactly what he was trying to say. He being a socialist that wanted government to assist in genetically improving the race, whatever he was saying, it probably wasn't good for the individual.

Eric makes the perfect case for not letting the State 'develop' us. The State exists as a collective force for self-protection. Any 'development' is in the process of life itself. The State has no business 'developing' us into obediant drones (as they have managed to do).

"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."---Hillary Clinton. The common good is, of course, what the State says it is. I guess we all know what side of the argument she comes down on. As for Huxley's quote, I do not intend to be "developed" by anyone but myself.

It's a poor quote if it needs explanation. It leaves you wondering what he meant.

The state outlives the individuals who purportedly compose it. Unless it collapses. Then usually a new state supplants the old. Don't ever forget that the state is a fictitious entity. A fiction. "It" doesn't exist except as an imagination of those who wrote its formative instrument, or thought its formative thoughts. We are real. We exist. The state does not. How, then, can the state do anything? It can't. Only real, live, human beings can act on behalf of the state. And by what authority? By that which comes forth the muzzle of a gun. It's really all hearts and minds - the hearts and minds of those who hold the guns and act collectively against the individual and weaker collectives.

The man was a Eugenicist, don't try and pretend that he cared for the average man.