In ancient Rome, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) grasped and examined the state in its reality, in contrast to the idealising approach taken by theHellenistic political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.3 Cicero further developed the concept of law (Lat. ius) to include, in addition to the substantive law he called lex positiva, lex naturalis and lex aeterna.4 He emphasised that the state was built on families that had become gentiles (Lat. gens). The family played a prominent role in the field of property relations as the basic unit of society and the economic system. The decisive motive for the transformation into a state was the protection of property. The protection of property was exercised by the family as a community. As Cicero points out in his work on offices, the cohesive force of the state is property (De officiis 2,73). John Locke’s view is close to Cicero’s understanding, who also considered the protection of property to be one of the main tasks of the state.5 Locke’s property-idea as part of the English writers’ (Lat. anglici scriptores) concept of liberty and property, also appeared in Polizeiwissenschaft, the fundamental work of Austrian Joseph Sonnenfelds (1732-1817), which was revised and translated from German to Latin by Hungarian Farkas Beke (1774-1838),6 nd saw two editions, the first in 1807-1808 and the second in 1823.7

The basis of the state is also its authority. The authority of the secular state was mainly discussed in 18th-century Lutheran theological literature.8 Based on 18th-century Swiss German Lutheran ethics, the monarchy’s legitimacy rested on the nobility’s sense of honour. In monarchical states, only those entitled to bear arms were considered noble, and their pursuit of honour was seen as the sustaining force of the state.9 In contrast with other European states, the Hungarian State was influenced by distinctive factors: constitutional liberty, constant struggles for sovereignty, the question of national survival, and the medieval theory of the ‘three regions.’10

State and morality are interconnected. According to Hegel, “[T]he state is the reality of the moral idea, - the moral spirit as the obvious, self-evident, substantial will, which thinks and knows itself, and carries out what it knows, and insofar as it knows it. In morality [the state] exists directly, and indirectly [is present] in the self-consciousness, knowledge, and activity of the individual.”11

According to the interpretation of Hegel by Andrej Andrejevič Piontkovskij (1898-1973), this concept means that reason, the general will, is embodied in the state and in the activities of state power bodies. In the rational state, the general will, the moral idea, can be understood as an essence and a phenomenon.12 At the same time, we know from Marx’s critique of Hegel, which is otherwise irrelevant to our investigation but of great epistemological importance, that according to his statement, Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach (1804-1872) traced Hegel’s idealism back to religious consciousness.13 The aforementioned Hegelian moral idea, i.e. morality, also presupposes the world order.14 While Hegel’s and Marx’s conception of the state today is interpreted as (vagy: within the context of?) a struggle concerning views on the existence of European nation-state(s), or its replacement with the United States of Europe, or perhaps the establishment of a single World State and a world government/world governance instead of states (the emergence of global governance), it can be useful in the context of a war without a declaration of war,15 or perhaps the establishment of a single World State and a world government/world governance instead of states (the emergence of global governance), it can be useful in the context of a war without a declaration of war.16

The nation-state and the Hungarian Holy Crown cannot be placed in a museum or locked in a glass case, no matter how much some circles want to do so. The World State is not a new phenomenon. Concha assumes that a World State requires a world citizen “who embraces all humanity.” However, according to him, “a world citizen is not a human being,” and “the idea of a world citizen cannot be formed from either the human spirit or the true concept of freedom.”17

Among the world states, he does not refer to a single global state encompassing the entire planet, but to the old great historical, mostly ancient empires that “fell to ruin due to the strength or weakness of the individual.” (Here one can think of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the empire of Alexander the Great, the Hun Empire, or the Mongol Empire). The reason for the creation of the World State may also be the promise of world peace, ‘eternal peace.’ But perhaps we can assume that all this does not happen immediately, in one moment, but that the smaller nation-states (by continent) are first only partially united, united in legal communities, and then the separately united states of the continents are united into a single World State.18

Thus, nation-states will seem unsustainable, and there may even be a shift towards a global state conglomerate due to the (for now assumed) large-scale labour-exhausting effect of machine technology. Then, Humanity/Mankind, which has been raised by work, will become unemployed and will be kept alive by the unconditional basic income, and human society will march towards a single government, a kind of legal system, a global government based on a single common world religion, perhaps requiring a single official language, a World Parliament, a World Court, a new world order based on a culture of abolition, a phalanstery. Thus, the still existing difference between secular19 and religiously based legal systems 20 will be erased.

According to the literature on world government/world governance, the function of the world court resolving unresolved conflicts can also be fulfilled in such a way that the Member States of the UN Security Council exercise the powers assigned to them more strictly.21 A world government/world governance may be hindered by the fact that world political institutions cannot necessarily be created by or from the governments of existing states. A world state can be considered illegitimate, since there is not, or cannot be, a legitimate claim or legal basis on which political sovereignty over human society as a whole could be exercised. In other words, the democratic legitimacy of the world state, the world government/world governance, can be questioned here. The community of nations can possibly be imagined as a single political body, exercising sovereignty, according to some authors.22

Why do states arise/were they created? According to Concha, the state is a higher level of human life, higher than the level of the individual, religion, or society. However, observing the course of history, it does not seem as if the state is connected to these entities, but rather arises as a means of meeting the needs of individuals, partly within a religious framework. However, power is also a source of the state, as is the desire for order.23

Concha’s student describes the state as a form of society in which the struggles of society regarding individual interests do not cease, but instead of social turmoil, there is order, and the ideals of freedom and equality are being realised. The state sets limits to ensure the rights of individuals, while guarding against circumstances that threaten the state, and taking retaliatory measures against elements that are dangerous to society.24

According to current knowledge, the consolidation of statehood cannot be linked to the Sumerians, who founded the first state. There were obviously several abortive attempts before their success. The Sumerians developed a legal system according to which the temple enjoyed an absolute monopoly in the field of land ownership. In addition, specific property relations were established (see the section on property).25

The product of the period between 1911 and 1920 is Max Weber’s theory of the rational state, where the state is, on the one hand a ruling enterprise and on the other hand an administrative product, where political control is mixed with bureaucratic rule.26 Many ideas and views struggle, but we hope that scientific problems will be solved, and the debates will settle over time.