Comment: Maybe not

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Nature (see in situ)

Maybe not

"Historically speaking, those who believe human nature is evil tend towards authoritarian thinking whereas those who believe human nature is good tend towards libertarian thinking."

I disagree with this. Hobbs basically says that the primary reason for the state was to keep peace in order to keep its citizens from harm as without a state a war of all against all would break out, thus endangering lives and property. Yes, he goes further to say that what is needed is the existence of a powerful state, known as the Leviathan as only this can properly constrain man’s violent nature.

Remember Hobbs was a Calvinist. Calvinism holds strongly to the notion that humanity is totally depraved and can expect no salvation by its own. Hobbes, although he rejected some of the more theological aspects of his upbringing, at least according to some scholars still held strongly to this view. In Hobbes’s view, because man is totally corrupted, peace is unlikely, thus a powerful state is needed in order to keep the order.

I by no means want to defend Hobbs as some perfect Libertarian, but we can't just generalize him. If you believe that human nature is corrupt and we are inherently bad, you want to set up a system that protects people from other people, and that also protects you from a government. I see no need for a government at all if people are basically good.

I suppose this really gets down to; what is the purpose of a government? Is one needed, and if so, for what? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I of course, have some as well!

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson