A "State" is a 'government'; a government is a 'way' to relate the Top and the Bottom, of the social..

J.J. Rousseau, called the State a "fiction". Apparently, the reason is that, one cannot point to a State, in the same manner as one can point, to a rock, or a house. Its a 'political Institution' that demands great respect. The 'reason' for that respect is more apparent, viz. it 'institutionalizes' the Top of a Governmental structure. I say, the Top of a Governmental structure, because all 'arrangements' or 'governments' of the 'Many' People, are arrangements of that ancient problematic, called the One and the Many, which is an arrangement of a Top and a Bottom. Since it is an 'arrangement', of the Many Peoples in a 'civilized unity', the Top must, of necessity, relate to the Bottom. That's where language has always been a problem. The problematic is that the relation can be a purely linguistic relation, in which case, it quickly translates into 'political jargon'; viz., we do the 'talk' but don't do the 'walk'. Simplistic? yes, but even these 'everyday sayings' can reflect a serious problematic. The relation must be a 'real relation' not just a 'reflection' of simple 'linguistic usage'. Of course, if the relation is a 'real relation', as opposed to a purely 'linguistic relation', then the concept of the State is not a 'fiction'. Why? Simply because the State is a structure of the One and the Many, in a 'most functional' form, where a Top 'really relates' to the Bottom where all the People are situated. Hence, in that case, the State would not be an empty concept of a 'political Institution', that relates to the multiplicity of Peoples at the Bottom, in some 'purely linguistic fashion'. Of course, the linguistic terms, "a real relation" can also be called a linguistic formulation but, notice that the 'terms', reflect an 'activity' that 'must take place'. That's using language in a real way where the Linguistic terms don't just 'define' an activity, ( going to a dictionary) but compel it, (do it) in a 'real way'. It also clarifies the difference between a 'politician' and a 'states-person'. A 'politician' is very adept at manipulating language, whereas, a 'states-person', is very adept at manipulating institutions that 'support' a government, "for the People". The real relation 'really touches', or includes or excludes, the individual at the Bottom, who are affected, effected, by the Policy or Law. A 'real relation' is not 'just' an abstraction, its real.