To trigger off any philosophy on what should be the characteristics of the state
we must first imagine living in a state of nature (living with the lack of a
state). Since we cannot trace back to any time that we’ve been without
government, we must imagine what it would be like in a state of nature. What are
people like with the absence of a state? there have been many views in answering
this question, therefore there have been many differences in views for what the
“ideal” state should be and serve as. A character of a state is described to
best remedy for the deficiency of the “State of Nature”, as Hobbes came up
with his pessimistic state of nature in which life is solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short. Hobbes' view started off when he stated that the first
principle of human behavior was egoism, or self-interest, and it was this
egoism, that was the root of all social conflict. Although Hobbes stated that
all people are roughly equal, still, if someone has more, others have less. The
insecurity regarding what you can keep leads to violence. “where there are no
restraints on people’s actions, it leads to the war of ‘all against
all’” says Hobbes. So, Hobbes is basically saying, any state is better than
the state of nature, be glad that the state is there. Even if it is a corrupt
state, you will benefit more from the corrupt state than you would from the
State of Nature which is completely lawless. However, this vision of society
which leaves power out of the hands of the people and leads to criticisms from
philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau, who counters Hobbes with their own
ideas of the “state of nature”. In Locke's “State of Nature” the
“State of Nature” is ordered by the Laws of Nature, including your Natural
Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. If a man works a piece of land and makes
it better and more valuable or useful, it becomes his property. This possession
can only be freely contracted away to others, and government. Although Locke
said that the political society is the result of agreements made between people
living in a “State of Nature”, he says that the state must have permission
by a person to enforce the law on him, however if you acquire any property which
falls under the jurisdiction of the state, you thereby become a tacit member of
that state. Thus, by using the benefits of the state, you have consented to
being a member of the state. On a more liberal and appealing philosophy than
both Locke and Hobbes, Rousseau maintained that human beings were essentially
good and equal in the “State of Nature” but were corrupted by the
introduction of property, agriculture, science, and commerce. People entered
into a social contract among themselves, establishing governments and
educational systems to correct the inequalities brought about by the rise of
civilization. All of the differences between Rousseau’s theories when compared
to Locke and Hobbes, begin with different interpretations of the state of
nature. Since Hobbes had the impression that all people were egoists and were
only interested in their own good, he figured it would lead to the war of “all
against all”, therefore any government was better than the “state of
nature”. Locke believed that most people got along pretty well for the most
part by rational intuition, but were always a few “bad apples” in the group
that forced others to give up their natural rights in a law system in order to
be able to punish the exceptions in the society. Rousseau criticizes Hobbes and
Locke by saying that they weren’t really looking at the real “State of
Nature”, and that all of the negative qualities of human beings that they had
mentioned to be present in the “State of Nature” was in fact, a quality
brought on by the state of their time. The Rousseau version of the “State of
Nature” differs greatly from Locke, but from Hobbes especially, in that he
makes no mention of the constant fear which Hobbes believed would control
man’s life in the state of nature, rather he describes the State of Nature as
pleasant and peaceful. He described the people in this primitive state as living
free, healthy, honest and happy lives, and felt that man was timid, and would
always avoid conflict, rather than seek it out. “So why a form of social
organization” Rousseau asks? He recognized simply, that it would be impossible
for man to shake the society and return to a state of nature. Now for the least
popular view of all that just happens to be my favorite, the anarchist view.
Even though I can’t say it is the best view or it would even work, it is the
view that makes me think the most. It is the most optimistic view of all because
it simply states that the “State of Nature” would be the best state to live
in, a state would not be necessary. Anarchists view that there are no “rotten
apples”. So far as there are “rotten apples” in the society, as Rousseau
even suggests, this is a creation of the government. Anarchists propose that
governments are a cause of anti-social behavior, even though they are created in
order to remedy it. In the anarchist’s system the anti-social person will be
abandoned, in a sense left out of the cooperative society. In the anarchist’s
view, people become ‘perfected’ because they become cooperative and
non-aggressive. But if there were “bad apples” in a state of anarchism,
wouldn’t they become a threat to the society if their anti-social behavior
lead to violence? (which comes back to Hobbes’ theory of the State of Nature
that would lead to the war of “all against all”) And it leads to even more
questions of insecurity like: without coercion or authority would people obey
the law or does the threat of punishment work to promote more crime? Would you
want to live in a society where there were no punishments for crimes? Maybe
public opinion would be enough to keep the society in line... It is allot to
think about and the arguments go around in circles forever just because no
system works out to be perfect because, their are arguments for every gap or
flaw in every rule or theory. After I’ve been corrupted by so many different
ideas of the “State of Nature”, It’s hard to state my own idea of it
without repeating someone else. But anyhow, In the “State of Nature” I’d
think of people as generally being cooperative, and smart enough to try and keep
the peace and order. Sure, people are concerned with their own interests, but
they are rational enough to think of ways for reaching their interests without
causing conflict with others, after all, keeping the peace with people would be
a self interest of mine. In this case you’d ask again, why is government
necessary? however, I’m not sure I would like to try the anarchist’s system
just because of uncertainties of mine about the “State of Nature”. We’ve
never been in the “State of Nature” so it would be scary to simply “try it
out”.