The objections that can be raised above all against a book about state and individual, are directed either against the results or the methods of the investigation, and, in accordance with this bipartition, proceed from two different kinds of critics. Whoever expects, in any author, an unbroken harmony with the content of the views that are held to be timely, or whoever faces the empirical manifestations of the law and of the state with concrete purposes and goals, will compare the finished formulations that articulate the conclusions of a book with their own results, which are presupposed as self-evident, and pass judgment accordingly, or perhaps even complain about the absence of a ‘result’.