How would you advance those definitions? What do you see missing from previous attempts to define the State?
Are we in any position to limit the power of the State when just as many others are using the power of the State to further their own nefarious goals?
I believe We the People are ALWAYS in a position to limit the power of the State. The State has no power except what we give it. When people willingly rush to concede their liberties to the State, sometimes those liberties are hard to recover. Historically, it requires bloodshed. That's why power should be yielded up grudgingly, if at all. And that's why regulations such as these are to be feared.
Is this how we are going to move toward our destiny in outer space?
I hope not. But it will take men of vision and far more diplomacy than I have to negotiate around the bureaucrats who would strangle innovation in its cradle.
Dunno. Reading whatever is available in philosophy circles. That is where it must be done, and that is where it seems to have gotten bogged down. The modern state seems to have taken total power and all we see is a helpless waving of arms. We are lucky to have chosen a decent man as President because it would be very easy for a man with bad intent to turn the State on the people. The Spanish Anarchists had a moment in the sun but the State returned shortly with a vengeance--so much for the power of the people. At this time it appears the State, all the modern States that cover the earth like a bucket of paint, are disposed to keep the people out of space, and denying private property rights by neglect is the most powerful way to do it.