How to Rule

How to Rule

The definition that we have for: state of nature of man, is the first building block of a social contract and defines the need of what type of government a society needs. How you define ‘state of nature’ will directly affect the type of government you have. The state of nature will differ for every society. The definition of the state of nature of man reveals what humanity has or is lacking pertaining to social behavior between him and other individuals. Based on the definition of a man’s state of nature we develop a social contract that best suites his needs.

It is my belief that in determining what type of governing, or what social contract works better for us we must first look at what makes up our surroundings; our environment, our political history, and our past experiences. I argue that Hobbs, and Locke were both correct in their political philosophy. I believe that Scott’s and Simmons experimentation in different governing systems is beneficial as well. I argue that for a particular group of people the type of governing that works, will be different, and will depend on the historical and social material of that group. It is difficult to recommend Hobbs, rule of monarchy to a country that already had monarchy. Neither would you preach Locke or taunt with Scott’s ‘cooperative anarchy’ the people of Egypt or Syria. I argue that we cannot prescribe ‘Democracy’ as a solution for everyone, because everyone has different social, cultural, ethical, and moral condition. There are many choices to choose from including monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, tyranny, oligarchy, or anarchy. How can we decide which one works best for a particular country? I argue that we must not be too quick to recommend democracy, for democracy is the rule of the poor by the poor, and in countries that don’t have a well-educated poor that can rule, bringing democracy is same as bringing anarchy.   

            In order to better understand how a cultural state of a country will affect the type of government it should have we can look closer at definitions of state of nature from Hobbs and Locke. Hobbs explains that a man’s state of nature is a state of war, where every man is on his own and is solely responsible for his wellbeing. This shows us that men in his natural state is selfish and is unable to form a mutual contract with another unless he gives up the liberty to preserve his own life and transfers that right to the government. Hobbs latter uses the idea of a “transferring right” to solidify the ruler’s right to rule. He writes “and when a man hath in either manner abandoned or granted away his right, then is he said to be obligated or bound not to hinder those to whom such right is granted or abandoned from the benefit of it.” (Leviathan, Ch 14, Sec 7) Hobbs states that if man does not want to return to the poor and violent state of nature but instead wants to remain part of civil society he must uphold his decision to give up his rights by not interfering with functions of the government. Here we see that Hobbes unlike Locke does not put much confidence in men. Were Hobbs states that man are egoists, Locke claims that men in the state of nature are good, calm, and have strong morals because of the law of nature which is reason. This law of nature or reason ensures that men have a mutual respect for “another’s in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” (Locke, Ch 2, Sec 6)  Locke believed that men live in the state of nature when there is no government to interpret and uphold the law, but reason is enough to allow them to live in peace. Lock writes “Men living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.” (Locke, Ch 3, Sec 19)  Locke goes on to say that the state of nature is supported by the law of nature which is given by God, and reason given by God to allow man to realize those rights.  Law of Nature does not need government to enforce it, hence, men can live in a civil society without the need for government and that these natural rights can’t be taken away by government. In comparing the two philosophers we see that in the matters of life, liberty, and property Locke limited these rights to the law of nature, whereas Hobbs placed no limits on men in his state of nature by saying that he doesn’t have to respect others property and liberty if those actions harm his wellbeing.

            In having looked at different options for the state of nature is it possible to say that countries exist today that can fall into one of the two definitions? Are there countries that fall in to a constant state of war without a central government, and are there countries that continue to be sufficient and stable without a stable central government? Countries with a different state of nature, (different social, cultural, ethical, and moral conditions) developed over a long period of time, would each need a distinctly different political system. I would like to note that even though each country would need a different political systems, it would definitely need one. One topic that both Locke and Hobbs agreed on was that men are naturally prone to come together and form political societies.

Locke states that people are social creatures and despite having complete freedom give up some of their rights to obtain security. Locke writes that in a society criminals and thieves will ignore the natural rights and not respect the property of others. In this case the people will create the government and grant it political power. In doing so, the people will grant the government “a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws…all only for the public good.”(Locke, Ch 1, Sec 3)  The people will form a social contract with the government and by doing so give up some power in exchange for security of their property.

      The government is the one that is responsible for saving the people from their violent nature by defining wrong/right, and enforcing those laws any way possible for continued protection of the people’s lives. Choosing what type of government a country should have to carry out this tasks depends on its current state of affairs, its current state of nature.