The actions that idnoviduals take on behalf of government are a direct reflection of the "abstract" policies and laws of that government. If you cannot discern this from 20th century history I don't know what to tell you.
Policies and laws aren't abstract, they're a good example in fact of what I said - things that have a concerete effect on reality typically authored by a small number of specific individuals within a government.
Yeah I think so, I also misinterpreted your quoted 'abstract' I think :-)
Basically my main point (or question really, I am not sure in it) is that we should resist thinking about government as an abstract entiry different in character from any org - really what it does or looks after is just, in the end, some small set of humans doing some actions that have some effect.
They're democratically elected yes, but that is a bit meaningless in the practical detail of any one given situation. In a sense it's not different, safer, or better, than some company led by some small set of individuals also makikg concrete decisons, for any one concrete decision.
Maybe democracy and policy has some aggregate influence over all decisions, making them lean in a certain way. But it's not like 'the government' as an entity is one thing led by a concrete conciousness or plan. Does that make more sense?
