 Welcome back. In this section, we shall discuss the nature of the state. Now, when you try to examine the nature of the state, we find that there are various points of view regarding the nature of the state. Accordingly, it is necessary to examine some of the more important views regarding the nature of the state for a clear understanding of the same. These various viewpoints are discussed as follows. Legal notion of the state. The Roman Empire gave birth to the legal notion regarding the nature of the state. In the modern period, thinkers like Bodin, Hobbes, Bentham, and Austin are the chief exponents of the legal notion of the state. As per the legal notion of the state, the state is entirely a legal construct. The state was formed for making, interpreting, and enforcing law in order to regulate human behavior. If the law is violated, it has coercive power at its command to punish the violator. The legal notion of the state is criticized as a partial view. It is pointed out by the critics that besides lawmaking, the state is also responsible for promotion of the moral and spiritual life of the people. Now, we come to the next notion regarding the nature of the state, which is the ethical notion of the state. The ethical notion regarding the nature of the state was propounded by Plato and Aristotle. The state is necessary for intellectual moral and material development, as the state represents the highest morality. Many political philosophers like Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Th Green, and others also supported the notion of the state as a supreme ethical institution. This view is criticized on the ground that the state is regarded as an end in itself and not a means for the moral and intellectual development of man. Another important view regarding the nature of the state is that of the state as a necessary evil. The individualists considered the state as a necessary evil. However, in the absence of a state, each individual will seek one's own selfish interests at the expense of others. There will be no law in order. Accordingly, the state becomes necessary to maintain law and order in the society. Adne Smith, Bentham, and Herbert Spencer supported this view. Critics point out that the state is not a negative institution. The state is capable of performing many positive functions for the welfare of the society at large. The next important viewpoint regarding the nature of the state is that of the anarchist notion of the state as an unnecessary evil. The anarchist view regarding the nature of the state is that the state is an evil. And as such, the sooner it is abolished, the better it will be for the spontaneous development of a person's personality. They believe that with the gradual perfection of human nature, the state as an agency for regulating human conduct will become less and less necessary. Now we come to the next important viewpoint regarding the nature of the state, which is the pluralist notion of the state. According to the pluralist view of the state, the state is to be accorded a co-equal status with other prominent groups, like the family, the church, the trade union, the social club, et cetera, which cater to various needs. The pluralists stand for decentralization of political power and do not consider the state as in any way superior to other associations which perform their due functions in the society. The important advocates of this view are MacIver and Lasky. However, critics of the view that it is important to have a superior organization in the form of the state to regulate and coordinate the affairs of the various organizations in the society. Now the next viewpoint regarding the nature of the state is that of the totalitarian state. According to the totalitarian view of the state, the state has absolute powers, and the individuals have no right against the states. The state exercises control, or rather exclusive control, over the whole life of the individual. Philosophers like Hegel and Nietzsche, writers like Burhani and Trichke, and dictators like Mussolini and Hitler supported the totalitarian notion of the state. Critics point out that such a view of the state is highly undesirable, as it is undemocratic, and it denies the worth and dignity of the human personality. Come to the next important view regarding the nature of the state, which is the power notion of the states. Now the advocates of the power notion of the state interpret the state exclusively in terms of might. The German writers like Burhani and Trichke interpreted the state exclusively as a power system with unlimited authority to make war and peace. When individuals come into contact with each other, conflicts and contradictions arise in society. This requires the use of power to cope with the demands of various sections of the society, and to maintain peace and harmony in society. The power view of the nature of the state is not accepted by many writers. They do not deny that force is an essential part of the state, but they point out that force is not the foundation of the state. Root force can never justify a state. Power needs to be transformed into authority. In other words, the use of power by the state must be for social ends and based on popular consent. Now let us examine another significant notion regarding the nature of the state, which is the state as a welfare system. The contemporary liberal view of the state is that of a welfare state. The main supporters of this view are thinkers like J.S.Mill, T.H. Green, MacIver, and Lasky. According to this view, the state is not merely an agency for the maintenance of law and order. The state as a welfare system performs many positive functions, besides maintaining law and order. The state is required to regulate the working conditions of workers, spread education, promote the health of the people, run social services, and eradicate social evils. Now we come to the next important view regarding the nature of the state, which is the organic view of the state. The organic view of the state compares the state with a living organism and the individuals with its organs. As the existence and worth of the organs, such as in terms of hands, legs, et cetera, depends on the existence of the organism in terms of the living body as a whole, so also the existence and worth of the individuals depend on the existence of the state. The state is like a living organism, and there is complete interdependence among the individuals, the constituted. The state without individuals has no meaning, and the individuals separated from the state have no meaningful role to play. Hobbes, Rousseau, Herbert Spencer, and Friedrich are some of the political thinkers associated with the organic view of the state. German philosopher Friedrich was the first person to point out the interdependence of society and individual. Bluntly was of the view that the state is the very image of human organism. Each has its member parts, its organs, its functions, and its life processes, critics of the view that a comparison between the state and organism is superficial. Now we come to another notion regarding the nature of the state, which is the class view of the state. Some writers have described the state as a class structure. With the emergence of private property, the society came to be divided into two classes, the dominant class possessing ownership of private property and the dependent or oppressed class, which is the property-less class. The dominant class tries to uphold its own interests at the expense of the dependent or oppressed classes. According to Karl Marx, the state is an organization for the exploitation of the poor by the rich. The critics of this theory point out that there can be no rigid division of society into two classes, the dominant and dependent classes. They argue that a normal state exists for common good and not for serving the interests of the powerful sections alone.