I am not sure it can be solved so neatly. I am inclined to thinks we are simply appetite-driven creatures that will forever feed on one another: Government and the state are just another and larger predator.

A further thought: I suppose the point of Nick’s distinction is that if government or the State or whatever we call it is necessary we need to distinguish between the necessary and the unnecessary. If government is a necessary evil it should be limited by the understanding of the people to the necessary.

Perhaps. But is that because we doubt there has ever been a government that limited itself to securing rights? The Indians warred against each other long before the white man got here, and I assume their intentions were not always defensive. Perhaps the real distinction would be between a government that has no pretensions that its dictates are morally binding and a State which lives by that pretense. Not sure how well the Indians fare by that distinction. Perhaps the real distinction is between a government which is constrained to the necessary and by consensus and a State which is not. Perhaps the distinction is between a government which recognizes the equal right of all to the land and a State which does not.

I confess that Nock’s distinction between the state and government seems artificial and contrived.