2am musings

Immediately upon reading "the state, through its officials, speaks and acts for all," I rejected it. Intuitively I feel this to be false. How can it possibly be true? Does anyone actually feel that Obama, or any US leader, acts for them? No, and its not merely the result of flaws in our democracy. One may assert that Obama speaks for me insofar as, through democratic processes and institutions, he speaks for the American people. But this is not really to defeat the obvious practical lunacy of saying that he speaks for me. Plus, maybe I dont accept any association with the American people. The strand that holds this all together seems to be the necessity of government. One NEEDS government to secure independence and so forth, so rejecting it is inconsistent with the demands of human nature. I guess I just disagree with or have too little knowledge of Kant's conception of such nature, which lies at the root of his political philosophy. Why cant I allow someone to use me instrumentally? Why is independence important? The claims questioned here are critical for Kant's political account, but I have seen insufficient proof of them.