It is for these reasons that all traditions within Anarchism wish to advance human kind through the removal of the state in society. Anarchists agree that there will be a natural order, no authority and a free market. However, there is a clear divide between individualist and collectivist anarchists with regard to the social arrangements and the economy and how it should be run. Anarchists are united in their belief that natural order will arise in a future stateless society. This stems from their Utopian view of human nature which argues that people cannot flourish under a state and will only reach their full potential when they are free from religious authority and power.
Given Hobbes’ account of human nature in the state of nature, can one ever leave it? The well-known and oft-quoted assessment, “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” is Hobbes’ unduly pessimistic and anarchical view of man in the state of nature. He believed the state of nature to be a state of war, where man would do anything for self-preservation, there was no right and wrong, and where there would be “continual fear, and danger of violent death.” The natural state of man is left when individuals give up their natural and anarchic freedom to do whatever they please, in exchange for personal security and it is this that Hobbes bases his theory on the need for government on. For a government to be established each individual must agree to this new establishment as if to say, “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men.” This type of social contract works as a quid pro quo between the individuals and the sovereign: the power of the sovereign is absolute as long as the lives of the individuals are protected by the sovereign. Hobbes argues that the only way to establish such a power is for men “to conferre all their power and strength upon One Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills by plurality of voices unto one Will.” In short, Hobbes argues that man leaves the state of nature in order to gain personal security which is achieved through the creation of a civil society, with a governing body.
The first of which explains that men have a natural right to acquire and possess property; this argument is the most important to the overarching theme of his work. Locke’s overall political theory tells that men have inherent, natural rights in the state of nature, rights which are independent of larger society: they are life, liberty and property (¶124). Locke argues that despite the fact that God gave earth to mankind in common, men own their own bodies, including what we put into our bodies such as food and that which we make from our bodies, so “excludes the common right of other men” (¶27). The example of food actually becomes a cornerstone in Locke’s logic of natural property rights. Locke insists everyone is bound to preserve himself by reason, (¶6) such preservation requires the intake of food; therefore man is inclined to possess private property to preserve himself.
He uses society’s inability to scold specific actions to create a sense of ease about the crimes the characters commit which fuels further moral blindness. To contrast the viciousness of society, Dubus uses natures’ innocence to emphasize that there is still morality left in the world. Overall Dubus’s vision of a post-modern society is one that is chock-full of people who are unable to see beyond their own needs and will do anything possible, even it goes against their morals, to create a perfect society for
Vonnegut’s pessimistic attitude is geared harshly to the ideology on how everyone should be the same with no winners or losers, all having to succumb to being merely mediocre. When Harrison Bergeron reveals himself, it is at this point we are seeing Kurt Vonnegut’s voice and opinion being emitted from Bergeron. It reveals that Vonnegut being like Bergeron would die rather than continue to abide by a society sullied by hideous and unnecessary laws of
Galt communicates that the evil of the world is made possible only by the sanction of the victim, and that individuals must withdraw their sanction. People must understand that they are enslaved and they must be able to identify their enemies. Galt states that the individual has sole control over his or her own happiness, with no one else to blame problems on, “No one’s happiness but my own is in my power to achieve or destroy” (786). This philosophy completely rules out the popular looter slogans of, “I couldn’t help it!” (523), and “They made me do it!”
We are to keep the peace among the nations of the earth because that is our belief as a people, but we must know our enemy, we must know their intentions and what they wish to carry out. Terrorists do not adhere to the custom of respect of an individual. They act as animals, slaughtering without remorse. They do not deserve the rights of our nation or of man. The argument for the Justification of torture on terrorists is completely justifiable and the only course of action in ascertaining vital information for the nation’s defense.
Hobbes sees natural law as a state of war in which every man is an enemy to every man. (Hobbs, T. 1991 p.94) Locke on the other hand, sees natural law as a state of equality and freedom. (Locke, J. 1967 p. 289). This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law.
All this barbarism was self-inflicted and could have been avoided. The Reign of Terror distorted the desire of people to put power limitations to the government as it gave rise to laws permitting only a small society section to have control on the lives of people, and make the people in the
Even the greatest of artists would rather give away his life than surrender his art to be judged solely by the public. Art for an artistic genius is practised for its own sake; art for the purpose of art. Existence for the sake of existence itself - stripped of meaning, of value and of subjective interpretation. In its bear meaningless form, something still remains: the necessary Natural Law, a philosophical concept considered the basis of human well-being, a system of the values that determine human existence. Throughout The Tempest Prospero’s character portrays an image of a nearly Nietzchean superhuman capable of disclaiming authority, killing God.