Stranger, I’m actually running across in my readings what is called “civil society”. The civil society is the same as the free market except the latter focuses on the economic aspect of a civil society. They are the same in nature because they are both the spontaneous events of humans living together. The government is the coercive rise of what are deemed unjust and criminal. The State works for the government now, but I think the State if it joins the free market realm of spontaneous interaction it is what Aristotle calls “civil society”. I can interchange the words cause I understand what you mean, but the State in the writings that I come across is consistently intermixed with government. I totally understand the difference you are defining. I see what you mean above as to what the state consists of. I like the concept of “civil society” though cause it includes what the state is but it delineates its’ nature of the current State that works with the government. The civil society is here today, and is spontaneous in activity and the state once it turns away from government powers given to it is called traditionally “civil society”. I think that might clear up any confusion since the State and government are intermixed currently, but civil society is the good side of the state, the free market side of what the current state can potentially be. To use civil society in discussions therefore doesn’t reinvent a concept that is traditionally known and therefore is more widely recognized. Does this make sense?