Government and the State of Nature

Hannah Whalen

Professor Shirk

November 3, 2013

Government vs. the State of Nature

            The existence of the sovereign state as we know it developed from a time when no concept of government or greater power reigned over world citizens.  This absence of government and organization, known as anarchy, is also referred to as the state of nature by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.  According to Hobbes the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short,” (Hobbes, chapter 13).  For Hobbes the state of nature was a constant state of war, where every man protected his own life against every other man, there was no cooperation or community, and man’s only goal was survival.  This dim outlook on mankind paints a dismal picture in the absence of government, pegging mankind as barbaric and violent, with no sense of reason or rationality.  However, Locke takes a slightly more optimistic view of mankind in the state of nature.  Locke believes some sense of community and cooperation is possible between men in the state of nature, and mankind’s goals reach further than mere survival.

Out of these political philosophers’ work developed two different views regarding the role of the state.  Hobbes believed the state should serve to protect its people, providing security both internally and externally.  Thus, meeting the human instinctual desire for security and shielding a man from death.  The best form of government to provide this protection, according to Hobbes, was a single monarchy, where people would give up their rights in exchange for protection from the monarch tasked with the protection of his people. 

Locke, similar to his view of the state of nature, took a more complex view for the role of the state.  As mankind desires more than protection from death, property rights and other social needs must be protected by the government.  Government should serve to resolve conflict between its citizens.  Locke theorizes about a social contract, where man relinquishes some of his rights to the government in exchange for the ability to pursue life, liberty and property rights. 

Discussion about the state of nature and the role government should play in ensuring certain rights for its people, brings to light the question: Is government and political society as we know it necessary?  Hobbes would argue, people must have incentive not to kill each other.  Therefore, government and a clear hierarchy of power are necessary to prevent the state of nature from catapulting society into a state of war and violence.  Locke would disagree with Hobbes, seeing fault in oppressive regimes, “political philosophers since (and famously including) Locke have generally allowed that without substantial institutional safeguards designed to secure justice in the state and protect subjects form their rulers, the state of nature might in fact be preferable to the state,” (Simmons, 19). Like Locke, I believe humans are more complex, and the state of nature does not always yield chaos.  Humans seek more than survival from life, and will form communities and cooperate to enrich their lives, even without a ruling authority. 

This inherent characteristic of man leads to cooperation even in an anarchic world.  For example, we can look at the world structure and see a state of anarchy, as there is no authoritative ruler or agreed upon hierarchy, yet there is cooperation.  Although not comprehensive, for the most part nations are able to form treaties and trade agreements that they adhere to without an authority to compel them.  States find common interests that lead them to cooperation, rather than using violence against each other to gain what the other has.  This is not to say that war and violence does not exist, but the mere fact that the anarchic world system avoids a constant state of war suggests that people are capable of living without an authoritative ruler or hierarchy of power. 

Scott also shares this more optimistic view on human nature and anarchy.  People have reason and the ability for rational thought, this characteristic aids them in the state of nature.  Scott writes, “most villages and neighborhoods function precisely because of the informal, transient networks of coordination that do not require formal organization, let alone hierarchy,”(Scott, xxi).  Scott’s perspective is called a cooperative anarchist.  In order for his cooperative anarchy to work, one must have a generally positive outlook on human nature.  It assumes people want to work together and cooperate even in the absence of law, authority and a hierarchy of power.  His cooperative anarchist view even claims that states are more likely to yield an authoritative violent situation than a cooperative anarchy.  For example Nazi Germany was produced from a state with law, authority and a hierarchy of power.  For Scott the world can function without government and political society as we know it.

Simmons also argues for the possibility of an alternative form of the state.  He offers different forms of organization, which stray from the modern concept of the state that evokes both political and territorial sovereignty.  He recalls from history different forms of organization writing, “there have been in human history good examples of rather different kinds of political orders. . . that differed in a variety of significant ways from our current political organizations,” (Simmons, 17).  From feudalism to tribal and migratory orders, history has already proven multiple versions of organization can dominate, and that the nature of humans allows for the development of organization even without an authoritative figure driving the order.

In conclusion the development of the sovereign state and political society as we know it is not inevitable from the state of nature.  Many forms of state that derive their power from cooperation and lack a hierarchy of power have and could exist.  Human nature allows for cooperation and community.  In the absence of authority members of society would not begin killing each other; rather, they would develop an organizational scheme that would not necessarily derive it authority from a hierarchy of power and territorial sovereignty.