Gabriel Fridegotto
Professor Shirk
International Organization
Short Paper
Discussion
Ethical and moral
evaluations of state and sovereignty
In this
weeks discussion, the class began to think about the different
theories of various political philosophers. Thomas Hobbs and John
Locke are the two who spoke of the idea of the “state of nature,”
where human beings acted a certain way when there was no formal
governance or political organization. Hobbs believed that the humans
in the “state of nature,” where inertly prudish and always were
at perpetual war. The only real concern that they had was to stay
alive, under whatever means possible. So if that mean they needed to
kill others around them they would just to stay alive. Locke's theory
was less pessimistic, he believed that humans were more capable of
working together and form smaller groups that would cooperate to stay
alive. This was a big step forward from Hobbs theory because Locke
did not believe that all humans in the state of nature we just trying
to stay alive.
I
believe its important to understand why both of these philosophers
thought that there needed to be any form of government at all, and
how their views were shaped by the state of nature. Hobbs, believing
that humans only wanted to stay alive, thought that the form of
government needed should be a complete monarchy, in which all humans
gave their rights meaning the right to stay alive and do as they
please without having to answer to anyone, and give that to the
figure he called the leviathan. In return this entity would provide
all with protection and humans would not have to worry about being
killed or war.
Locke
thought differently, his view of the state of nature led him to
believe that since humans had other things to worry about, besides
war and being killed, they would need a government system to only
intervene when a dispute broke out between two humans. A form of a
third party that would act to solve disputes. Therefore Locke
believed in humans property rights more. The phrase, life, Liberty
and the pursuit of freedom was founded on Locke's social contract
theory. It was originally the pursuit of life, liberty and property.
The social contract theory was an extremely new idea in political
philosophy. Humans instead of being In the state of nature would give
up some of their rights, once again to do as they please to gain
rights of property and protection.
I
believe this would be a modern day interpretation of what many in the
libertarian party. Although, referring to the more conservative base,
that believes any government system should only intervene for
protection, such as police and fire departments but stay out of every
other aspects of human life.
This
brings up another question of then what do anarchist believe?
According to the other two readings that were discussed in class, the
theories that anarchist believe, although seen as extreme by many, is
simply a counter system of the modern social political societies we
have today. The Simmons reading gave explanation of the various
concepts of the modern state and the difference it would have to any
sort of anarchic way of human life. First the questions, that weren't
asked in class are, Are states
the right way to go? And what are the alternatives according to the
Simmons article? Are political societies best and acceptable? Why
have states? These are seemingly simple questions to answer, but I
believe are much more complicated to explain. First, one must define
both the modern state system and then answer why it is needed. Then
we can begin to discuss alternatives, as in the anarchist views.
Simmons
states that there are two specific criterion to be categorized as a
modern state. One, claim to sovereignty, and two is claim to
geographical sovereignty. Meaning being an independent state and
being recognizing that very state is within specific boundaries.
There are many modern day examples of this, one being Palestine. It
technically has some territoriality sovereignty, but does not have
claim to full sovereignty in the international community. This bring
us to the next point, in the modern state system there is this idea
of international and domestic, meaning there are many states within
an anarchical world. No one absolute power over anyone. So if this
can happen in a world system why would it not work in human
societies. I believe that most people living within the modern system
have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way to live.
This
is the point that is made in the Scott readings, as mentioned in
class. The Scott reading is interesting because it tries to see the
modern state system through an anarchist viewpoint. That viewpoint is
very different than some of the conceptions that many people have
about anarchy today. Not all people associate a state of anarchy as
looting and rioting and the absence of law. Scott states, although
not completely endorsing anarchist theory to the fullest, that
anarchy can work. The absence of all government can only work, if the
view of the state of nature is inherently good. That people want to
cooperate and work together without having a political society
telling them how to do things through laws.
This
is also the point that Simmons makes when he discusses that humans
were at one point living without the modern states system we have
today. Instead they were living in city leagues, city-states and
empires. Roman Empire, Feudal relations of the middle ages, Many only
claimed the right of use rather than the right to complete and
permanent control of land. Which brings up a counter argument to the
anarchist viewpoint. If everyone lived in an anarchical world with no
nations having governments, would states even exist?
Using
an extreme example, there are people living in Antarctica, which is
only categorized as a continent and not a state, would these people
be living in total anarchy? It is possible, since there are very
little people having to live in this society. This is some regards as
I mentioned in class reminds me of some communist theories that state
that communities would exist with people would live self subsistence
lives. This would still entail some sort of political society and
government.
In
conclusion I believe, no matter what the state of nature is, the
current modern world system is needed to keep order. Yes, there are
many wars that have occurred in history, but out of that history the
system we have today emerged. Humans by nature in my opinion need
structure and quoting back to John Locke's theory of the social
contract, all humans live under one right now. In the United States
we sign a piece of paper that elects our leaders and if we don't like
them we can vote them out every four years for president and every
two for senate and every 6 for house of representatives. If this
social contract did not exist, I believe in the end would lead way
for one or only few to gain power and not let it go, so anarchy in
would lead to some sort of authoritarian form of government, which is
political society.
No comments:
Post a Comment