Introduction:

The idea that there have been multiple forms of government throughout human history is a truism.  From small tribes sustaining themselves by hunting and gathering, to the more complicated forms of government based on agriculture and animal husbandry, human beings have been nothing but creative in the various ways they have organized themselves in political structures.  In modern times – from the 1600’s on – two forms of government have generally garnered the most support, and subsequently have been created and/or tried in western Europe and the United States.  At the risk of oversimplification, these can be called the socialist/communist form and the government type called “liberal democracy” or “Western democracy.” The socialist or communist forms of government, in general, have a more positive outlook on human nature and belief in more government control in iterations of this political ideology. Although the ideology or the intellectual basis of the socialist or communist forms of government began in Western Europe, efforts to create a socialist government are mostly to be found today outside of Western Europe and the United States.  Some examples of this form of government can be seen in what was known as the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), and today in China, North Korea, and Venezuela. However popular this form of government continues to be in the world, this essay will only focus on Western liberal democracy since the 17th century, given the context of this competition. Specifically, I will focus and analyze the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and the Founders of America.

In order to discuss the necessity of government, or why we give to the government powers that we would not grant to the individual, it is paramount that one understands what exactly a government is, as well as its purpose. According to Merriam-Webster, a government is the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization. As for its purpose, governments are created to protect the interests of most of its people. A key part of the definition is “the body of persons” because it shows that the wellbeing of the many cannot be entrusted into the hands of an individual; it is simply too much work, given the sheer number of citizens in modern nations. Dividing up the task of governance between many individuals allows for a more efficient government and, in turn, a better condition for the people. As for the necessity of government, it is crucial to examine the people of whom the government and its society is composed, beginning with an understanding of human nature.

Thomas Hobbes:

In the 17th century, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan (1651), where Hobbes discusses this very idea, albeit under a different name: The state of nature. The state of nature is “the real or hypothetical condition of human beings before or without political association,” according to Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not an historical condition of humanity or a theoretical possibility; it is, rather, a situation where there is no effective government. Although the state of nature may seem like an antiquated concept, there are many instances of this condition in recent history and even in current events. One such example is 1992 Afghanistan.  During 1992, the people of Afghanistan inhabited a “tribal, multiethnic, multireligious, multilingual society marked by factionalism and military fiefdoms” in which “fratricidal warfare… [had] slipped irreversibly into anarchy” (Tarzi 165). With no central government, 1992 Afghanistan is a true demonstration of Hobbes state of nature, a war of every man against every man, with indiscriminate hellfire raining upon Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, killing 3,000 and causing 700,000 survivors to flee. While 1992 Afghanistan serves as a full realization of Hobbes’ brutish state of nature, present day Seattle demonstrates the early signs of the state of nature. With a resurgence of protests in support of “Black Lives Matter”, people have been pushing to defund police departments. In Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, the idea of “no police” became a reality, with local law enforcement having been pushed out of their station (police precinct). This area has been called either the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) or the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ). With no direct government influence in the form of law enforcement, Capitol Hill’s people were free to do what they pleased, thus serving as an image of Hobbes’ state of nature, in which there was no established, centralized government. The effects of this (non)governance (what they call “self-governance”) were immediately evident in the two shootings which occurred in CHAZ on June 20th, 2020. The shootings left a 19-year-old dead and one injured, according to The New York Times. There were no emergency services that came to the scene because that would have been government presence and intervention. Thus, the only people there to help were volunteer medics who rushed to the scene. However, the Seattle Police Department released a statement saying that detectives are still working on the case despite “the challenges presented by the circumstances” (Fernandez and Baker, 1). The very next day (June 21st), another shooting occurred, leaving a 17-year-old boy injured, according to BBC News. Another shooting happened the following day (June 22nd), killing a man and critically injuring a 14-year-old boy, according to CNN. Given all this chaos, city officials have dismantled the autonomous zone and reopened the police station originally abandoned when the area was first setup. These instances demonstrate how actual centralized government organizations had to get involved in order to attempt to provide some sense of order – in Hobbes’ terms, the government had to secure peace.

Both Afghanistan and Seattle are examples of Hobbes idea of the state of nature, in which every man is against every man in a perpetual state of war and the lives of the people are “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 115).  Hobbes attributes this relatively negative outlook on humanity to the inherent equality he believes all people possess, because everyone is equally capable of killing one another in the sense that “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others” (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 112). From this equality arises the three principle causes of quarrel among human beings, according to Leviathan: Competition, Diffidence (Distrust), and Glory (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 114). Competition entails the fight between people to become masters of other’s property in order to gain necessary resources, while diffidence is put in the position of defending one’s own property. Glory encompasses the honor won by notable achievements and results from competition. Given the inherent selfishness present in humanity and the conflicts that follow, Hobbes believes that “every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it…to seek peace and follow it” (Hobbes 199) and thus will team up for mutual benefit in order to protect their interests. Hobbes’ seemingly negative outlook on human nature is correct because, whether they openly admit it or not, everyone worries about what others might do. Because people know there are those who will act in their own self-interest, they lock their cars and house, put their money in a bank or safe, and even carry firearms.

John Locke:

            The 17th century political philosopher John Locke also addressed the state of nature in his influential work, The Second Treatise on Government. Admittedly, Locke’s state of nature is more positive than Hobbes, for Locke believes that without any government, humanity is in a “state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and person, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without…depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke 6). Another key facet of Locke’s state of nature is equality. Everyone is equal because God made them so, which is a very different justification than Hobbes’. A governing principle in the state of nature is logic, and when applied to the equality experienced by all, dictates that there is no reason to harm one another if all are equal. However, this perfect freedom and equality become a problem once the exercise of that freedom begins to infringe upon the freedom of another. This naturally arising conflict is what necessitates government. To protect and maintain one’s freedom, it is necessary that they surrender a small portion of their freedoms to a governing body so that they may be ensured the preservation of the remaining freedoms.

            A key facet of Locke’s theory is the idea of private property. Locke believes that if one puts their labor into something, it becomes their property. If a farmer were to cultivate the earth and grow potatoes, they would belong to the farmer because his labor has made it so. Since each individual owns their labor, they are free to sell it in return for money or goods. This concept is important for the discussion about the Founders of America because when the Declaration of Independence highlights certain unalienable rights, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” (Declaration of Independence) the “Pursuit of Happiness” is referring to the right to own property as a result of labor.

Founders of America:

As mentioned in the previous section, the Founders of America (most notably John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington) based their ideas regarding government on Locke’s The Second Treatise on Government, as evidenced in, the Declaration of Independence. The key section of analysis is the first two paragraphs of the Declaration, in which the Lockean influence is apparent. The Founders share Locke’s belief that humanity is equal because of God and natural laws and thus have a set of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The purpose of government, which breeds its necessity, within all of this is to secure those unalienable rights through the “consent of the governed.”  The Founders belief regarding the necessity of government is explicitly stated in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, as follows: “…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (Hamilton, Madison, Shapiro 456).  As if that were not enough, in “Federalist 10,” a single paper out of the multiple Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison), say that government is necessary in order to control the violence and damage caused by factions, which are inevitable due to the nature of man. If people have different beliefs, amounts of wealth, and property, they will fraternize with those who are similar to them, thus leading to the creation of a multitude of factions which will offset one another. Madison views this as a positive because he believes that the presence of factions will ensure that the interests of the minority will not be superseded by that of the majority. An important facet of the Founders’ government is that the rights, which are mentioned explicitly in the Declaration of Independence, are unalienable (no individual can be deprived of them) and originate from human nature.

Conclusion:

The government is justified in asking for certain resources from its people, whether it be money or service, because the benefits conferred to the people due to the government’s necessary existence heavily outweigh the costs, which include the confiscation of property through taxation as well as limitations of personal freedoms. While the government takes from its people money, labor, and lives, it also provides them with social security, public education, healthcare, public transportation, basic infrastructure, labor laws, and a justice system. As seen through the works of Hobbes, Locke, and the Founders of America, government is necessary and will arise regardless due to human nature and is thus justified in its actions of both taking and giving to its people. Once again, at least in the case of most governments throughout the modern world, the benefits of government outweigh the costs.