本文分析史坦恩的「人格國家」理論，如何在二元體系思維下，依據人與自然的互動關係，建立其有機互動法則，呈現出「人格國家」的理論體系，以形成社會國的理論體系。歷史上，史坦恩站在社會國理論的原點，研究他的思想體系，應該有助於釐清社會國的本質，及其發展法則。本文認為，史坦恩的社會國是一種全面發展的理論，不一定是「左派」思想的專利，也不是單一階級（例如貧窮或者勞工）的發展理論，它體現為國家社會二元論，經過「自主國家」、「有機國家」、「倫理國家」發展到「歷史國家」的四個變動階段，構成理論體系的完成，本文即以「人格國家」總合他的國家哲學。尤其當我們置身現代福利國家的論述叢林之中，回顧理論的原點，有助於我們掌握問題的脈絡，重新思索社會國為什麼必要？以及它如何能夠解釋歷史的規律。 這樣的國家理論，對於我國會有什麼特別的時代意義？如果一個完整的國家理念具有民主國、法治國與社會國的三個面向，那麼史坦恩的理論應該有助於反思我國在民主化的過程中，可能產生的發展盲點，並且思考是否需要重新定位國家與社會的關係。 國家歷史的發展規律告訴我們，民主國的理念雖然使得專制國家成為歷史、然而民主國的原始功能也只在於定義國家權力的「來源」，民主理念不僅解決不了社會問題，反而複製社會不平等；法律的功能在於平等，也可能固定不平等，法治國的原始功能也只能定義國家權力的「形式」，如果要讓國家權力的「來源」與「形式」，能夠與時俱進，就必須同時賦予國家權力特定的「目的與價值」，這應該就是社會國對於國家權力的意義，也是民主國、法治國與社會國鼎足而立的歷史原因。 史坦恩的理論是否能與當代社會正義論述，產生有效的對話？本文嘗試建立史坦恩與羅爾斯社會正義的對話，發現他們之間的差異性在於，其一，社會正義是個特定的狀態嗎？其二，國家的角色，沒有國家，社會正義可能實現嗎？至於相容性，史坦恩對於社會和諧與社會對立的二元分析方式，不僅能夠回應羅爾斯對於社會正義的想像，而且更能呈現社會利益的現實面向。

This paper discusses and analyses the theory of “personality state”. It stresses on how the organic interaction between human and the nature under the dualistic concept presents the theoretical system of “personality state” and further to “social state”. As argued in the paper, instead of focusing on a particular class (such as the proletariat or the labor class) or highlighting the “left-wing” ideology, the social state Lorenz von Stein’s is a theory with comprehensive development, in which “personality state” summarizes his philosophy of state. The context of his social State is the dualism of state and society, which accomplished through four dynamic steps: “sovereign state”, “organic state”, “ethic state” and further to “historical state”. This theory mode is differentiated from the distributive mode of resource under not only the principle of state subsidiary but also the subsidy offered from a democratic welfare state. Historically, standing on the original point of theory of social state and looking into the ideology of it, von Stein helps identify the nature and rule of development of a social state. Standing on the original point to retrace the theory may help master the context of the problem as well as to evaluate the necessity of social state and how it interprets the rules in history. What is the significance to Taiwan brought by this theory of state? If a comprehensive ideology of state includes three aspects namely the democratic state, state of rule of law as well as social state, it is possible that the theory von Stein’s would help evaluate the blind spots during the process of democratization and at the same time to reexamine the necessity of repositioning the relationship between the state and society in Taiwan. The pattern of the development of a state from history gives us the message that democratic state, on one hand, marks an end to states with totalitarian rule, but on the other hand, the original function of a democratic state is only to identify the “source” of power of a state. Not only being unable to solve social dependences, democratic ideology would actually create and copy social inequality. Meanwhile, the original function of state of rule of law, which aims at bringing equality and firming inequality, is also only to identify the “form” of the power of a state. So, if both the “source” and “form” needs to advance at times, it is necessary to give specific “visions and values” to the power of state. This not only has given meaning to state power from a social state, but also proves the sustainability of a democratic state, state of rule of law and social state. Does the theory von Stein’s and the discourse of social justice in the contemporary society result in an efficient converse? Through the dialog between von Stein and John Rawls on social justice, this paper observes that there are two differences in between. First, is social justice in a specific status? Second, can social justice be achieved if there is not a state? Concerning the compatibility, von Stein’s dualistic analysis of social harmony and social opposition, not only has responded to Rawls’s discourse on social justice, but also presents a realistic side to social interest.